iiiiifiii|i|iiu WjyMWf uiHJiMiniHinn n m I W,tt\ PBESENTED TO THE LIBRARY PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Professor fienvy van Dyke, D.D., IiIi.D. CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY FOURTH SERIES. VOL. IX. ISeil aub ^tlit\icl) on tfjt 33oofeö of ;&nm«rl. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXII. IP ") - PIIINTED BY MUPtllAY AND GIBB, FDR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LOXDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . . . C. SCRIBNER AND CO. .v^ BIBLICAL COHEN TA ON THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. c. F. k: BY C. F. KEIL, D.D., AND F. DELITZSCH, D.D., PROFESSORS OF THEOLOGY. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY THE REV. JAMES MARTIN, B. A., NOTTINGHAM. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXII. TABLE or CONTENTS. THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. INTRODUCTION. PAGE Title, Contents, Character, and Origin of the Books of Samuel, 1 EXPOSITION. I. History of the People of Israel under the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam. I. -VII.), ...... 13 Samuel's Birth and Dedication to the Lord. Hannah's Song of Praise (Chap, i.-ii. 10), . . . .14 Samuel's Service before Eli. Ungodliness of Eli's Sons. De- nunciation of Judgment upon Eli and his House (Chap, ii. 11-36), ....... 34 Samuel called to be a Prophet (Chap, iii.), . . .48 War with the Philistines. Loss of the Ark. Death of Eli and his Sons (Chap, iv.), . . . . .52 Humiliation of the Philistines by means of the Ark of the Covenant (Chap, v.-vii. 1), . . . .57 Conversion of Israel to the Lord by Samuel. Victory over the Philistines. Samuel as Judge of Israel (Chap. vii. 2-17), 70 II. The Monarchy of Saul from his Election till his ultimate Rejection (Ch,vp. viii.-xv.), . . . .77 Israel's Prayer for a King (Chap, viii.), . . .81 Anointing of Saul as King (Chap, ix.-x. 16), . . .86 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Saul elected King. His Election confirmed (Chap, x, 17- xi. 15), ....... 105 Samuel's Address at the Eenewal of the Monarchy (Chap, xii.), 114 Saul's Eeign, and his Unseasonable Sacrifice in the War against the Philistines (Chap, xiii.), .... 122 Jonathan's Heroic Act, and Israel's Victory over the Phili- stines. Saul's Wars and Family (Chap, xiv.), . .130 War with Ainalek. Saul's Disobedience and Rejection (Chap. XV.), 149 III, Saul's Fall and David's Election (Chap, xvi.-xxxi.), . 160 Anointing of David. His playing before Saul (Chap, xvi.), . 167 David's Victory over Goliath (Chap. xvii. 1-54), . , 172 Jonathan's Friendship. Saul's Jealousy and Plots against David (Chap. xvii. 55-xvm. 30), . . . .185 Jonathan's Intercession for David. Saul's renewed Attempts to murder him. David's Flight to Samuel (Chap, xix.), . 194 Jonathan's last Attempt to reconcile his Father to David (Chap. xx.-xxi. 1), ..... 206 David's Flight to Nob, and thence to Gath (Chap. xxi. 2-16), . 216 David's Wanderings in Judah and Moab. Massacre of Priests by Saul (Chap, xxii.), 222 David delivers Keilah. He is betrayed by the Ziphites, and marvellously saved from Saul in the Desert of Maon (Chap, xxiii.), . . . . . .228 David spares Saul in the Cave (Chap, xxiv.), . . . 233 Death of Samuel. Nabal and Abigail (Chap, xxv.), . . 238 David is betrayed again by the Ziphites, and spares Saul a second time (Chap, xxvi.), .... 247 David at Ziklag in the Land of the Philistines (Chap, xxvii.), . 254 David in the Army of the Philistines. Attack upon Israel. Saul and the Witch of Eudor (Chap, xxviii.), . . 258 Removal of David from the Army of the Philistines (Chap. xxix.), 270 David avenges upon the Amalekites the plundering and burning of Ziklag (Chap, xxx.), .... 272 Death and Burial of Saul and liis Sons (Chap, xxxi.), . . 278 TABLE OF CONTENTS. THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. PAGK I. David King over Judah, and Ishbosiietii King over Israel, . 283 David's Conduct on hearing of Saul's Death. His Elegy upon Saul and Jonathan (Chap, i.), . . . . 284 David King over Judah, and Ishbosheth King over Israel. Battle at Gibeon (Chap, ii.), . . . .292 David advances and Ishbosheth declines. Abner goes over to David, and is murdered by Joab (Chap, iii.), . . 299 Murder of Ishbosheth, and Punishment of the Murderers (Chap. iv.), ....... 308 II. The Government of David over all Israel in the Time of ITS Strength and Glory (Chap, v.-ix.), . . 312 David anointed King over all Israel. Jerusalem taken, and made the Capital of the Kingdom. Victories over the Philistines (Chap, v.), . . . . .313 Removal of the Ark to Jerusalem (Chap, vi.), . . . 326 David's Resolution to build a Temple. The promised Perpetuity of his Throne (Chap, vii.), . . . .339 David's "Wars, Victories, and Ministers of State (Chap, viii.), . 354 David's Kindness towards Mephibosheth (Chap, ix.), . . 370 III. David's Reign in its Decline (Chap, x.-xx.), . . 372 War with the Ammonites and Syrians (Chap, x.), . . 373 Siege of Rabbah. David's Adultery (Chap, xi.), . . 381 Nathan's Reproof and David's Repentance. Conquest of Rabbah (Chap, xii.), ...... 388 Amnon's Incest, and Absalom's Fratricide (Chap, xiii.), . 396 Absalom's Return, and Reconciliation to the King (Chap, xiv.), 405 Absalom's Rebellion and David's Flight (Chap, xv.-xvi. 14), . 413 Absalom's Entrance into Jerusalem. Advice of Ahithophel and Hushai (Chap. xvi. 15-xvii. 23), . . . .427 Absalom's Defeat and Death (Chap. xvii. 24-xix. 1), . . 433 David reinstated in his Kingdom (Chap. xix. 1-39), . . 442 Discontent in Israel, and Sheba's Rebellion (Chap. xix. 40-xx. 26), ....... 451 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE [V. Close of David's Reign (Chai ^xi.-xxiv.), • ' . • 458 Three Years' Famine. Heroic Acts performed in the Wars with the Philistines (Chap, xxi.), .... 459 David's Psalm of Thanksgiving for Victory over all his Enou liesi (Chap, xxii.), ...... 467 David's Last Words (Chap, xxiii. 1-7), . . . 484 David's Heroes (Chap, xxiii. 8-39), . . .490 Numbering of the People, and Pestilence (Chap, xxiv.), . 500 THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL INTRODUCTION. TITLE, CONTENTS, CHAEACTEK, AND ORIGIN OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. ^HE books of Samuel originally formed one undivided work, and in the Hebrew MSS. they do so still. The division into two books originated with the Alexan- drian translators (LXX.), and was not only adopted in the Vulgate and other versions, but in the sixteenth century it was introduced by Daniel Bomberg into our editions of the Hebrew Bible itself. In the Septuagint and Vulgate, these books are reckoned as belonging to the books of the Kings, and have the heading, Bacrikeioiv irpcory], SevTepa {Regum, i. et ii.). In the Septuagint they are called " books of the kingdoms," evidently with reference to the fact that each of these works contains an account of the history of a double kingdom, viz. : the books of Samuel, the history of the kingdoms of Saul and David ; and the books of Kings, that of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. This title does not appear unsuitable, so far as the books before us really contain an account of the rise of the monarchy in Israel. Nevertheless, we cannot regard it as the original title, or even as a more appropriate heading than the one given in the Hebrew canon, viz. " the look of Samuel," since this title not only originated in the fact that the first half {i.e. our first book) contains an account of the acts of the pro- phet Samuel, but was also intended to indicate that the spirit of Samuel formed the soul of the true kingdom in Israel, or that the earthly throne of the Israelitish kingdom of God derived its A 2 INTRODUCTION TO strength and perpetuity from the Spirit of the Lord which lived in the prophet. The division into two books answers to the contents, since the death of Saul, with which the first book closes, formed a turning-point in the development of the kingdom. The books of Samuel contain the history of the kingdom of God in Israel, from the termination of the age of the judges to the close of the reign of king David, and embrace a period of about 125 years, viz. from about 1140 to 1015 b.c. The ßrst book treats of the judgeship of the prophet Samuel and the reisn of king Saul, and is divided into three sections, answerino; to the three epochs formed by the judicial office of Samuel (ch. i,-vii.), the reign of Saul from his election till his rejection (ch. viii.-xv.), and the decline of his kingdom during his conflict with David, whom the Lord had chosen to be the leader of His people in the place of Saul (ch. xvi.— xxxi.). The renewal of the kingdom of God, which was now thoroughly disorganized both within and without, commenced with Samuel. When the pious Hannah asked for a son from the Lord, and Samuel was V given to her, the sanctuary of God at Shiloh was thoroughly desecrated under the decrepit high priest Eli by the base con- duct of his worthless sons, and the nation of Israel was given up to the power of the Philistines. If Israel, therefore, Avas to be delivered from the bondage of the heathen, it was necessary that it should be first of all redeemed from the bondage of sin and idolatry, that its false confidence in the visible pledges of the gracious presence of God should be shaken by heavy judg- ments, and the way prepared for its conversion to the Lord its God by deep humiliation. At the very same time, therefore, at which Samuel was called to be the prophet of God, the judg- ment of God was announced upon the degraded priesthood and the desecrated sanctuary. The ßrst section of our book, which describes the history of the renewal of the theocracy by Samuel, does not commence with the call of Samuel as prophet, but with an account on the one hand of the character of the national religion in the time of Eli, and on the other hand of the piety of the parents of Samuel, especially of his mother, and with an announcement of the judgment that was to fall upon Eli's house (ch. i. ii.). Then follow first of all the call of Samuel as prophet (ch. iii.), and the fulfilment of the judgment upon the house of THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 3 Eli and the house of God (ch. iv.) ; secondly, the manifesta- tion of the omnipotence of God upon the enemies of His people, by the chastisement of the Philistines for carrying off the ark of the covenant, and the victory which the Israelites gained over their oppressors through Samuel's prayer (ch. v.-vii. 14) ; and lastly, a summary of the judicial life of Samuel (ch. vii. 15-17). The second section contains, first, the negotiations of the people with Samuel concerning the appointment of a king, the anointing of Saul by the prophet, and his election as king, together with the establishment of his kingdom (ch. viii.-xii.) ; and secondly, a brief survey of the history of his reign, in connection with which the only events that are at all fully described are his first successful conflicts with the Philistines, and the war against the Amalekites which occasioned his ultimate rejection (ch. xiii.- XV.). In the third section (ch. xvi.-xxxi.) there is a much more- elaborate account of the history of Saul from his rejection till his death, since it not only describes the anointing of David and his victory over Goliath, but contains a circumstantial account of his attitude towards Saul, and the manifold complications arising from his long-continued persecution on the part of Saul, for the purpose of setting forth the gradual accomplishment of the counsels of God, both in the rejection of Saul and the elec- tion of Dcivid as king of Israel, to warn the ungodly against hard- ness of heart, and to strengthen the godly in their trust in the Lord, who guides His servants through tribulation and suffering to glory and honour. The second book contains the history of the reign of David, arranged in four sections: (1) his reign over Judah in Hebron, and his conflict with Ishbosheth the son of Saul, whom Abner had set up as king over the other tribes of Israel (ch. i.-iv.) : (2) the anointing of David as king over all Israel, and the firm establishment of his kingdom through the conquest of the citadel of Zion, and the elevation of Jerusalem into the capital of the kingdom ; the removal of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem ; the determination to build a temple to the Lord ; the promise given him by the Lord of the everlast- ing duration of his dominion ; and lastly, the subjugation of all the enemies of Israel (ch. v.-viii. 14), to which there is appended a list of the principal officers of state (ch. viii. 15-18), and an account of the favour shown to the house of Saul in the person of INIephibosheth (ch. ix.) : (3) the disturbance of his 4 INTRODUCTION TO reign through his adultery with Bathsheba during the Am- monitish and Syrian war, and the judgments which came upon his house in consequence of this sin through the wickedness of his sons, viz. the incest of Amnon and rebelUon of Absalom, and the insurrection of Sheba (ch. x.-xx.) : (4) the close of his reign, his song of thanksgiving for deliverance out of the hand of all his foes (ch. xxii.), and his last prophetic words concerning the just ruler in the fear of God (ch. xxiii. 1-7). The way is prepared for these, however, by an account of the expiation of Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites, and of various heroic acts performed by his generals during the wars with the Philistines (ch. xxi.) ; whilst a list of his several heroes is after- wards appended in ch. xxiii. 8-39, together with an account of the numbering of the people and consequent pestilence (ch. xxiv.), which is placed at the close of the work, simply because the punishment of this sin of David furnished the occasion for the erection of an altar of burnt-offering upon the site of the future temple. His death is not mentioned here, because he transferred the kingdom to his son Solomon before he died ; and the account of this transfer forms the introduction to the iiistory of Solomon in the first book of Kings, so that the close of David's life was most appropriately recorded there. So far as the character of the historical writin£p in the books of Samuel is concerned, there is something striking in the contrast which presents itself between the fulness with which the writer has described many events of apparently trifling im^portance, in connection with the lives of persons through whom the Lord secured the deliverance of His people and king- dom from their foes, and the summary brevity with which he disposes of the greatest enterprises of Saul and David, and the fierce and for the most part tedious wars with the surrounding nations ; so that, as Thenius says, " particular portions of the work differ in the most striking manner from all tlie rest, the one part being very brief, and written almost in the form of a chronicle, the other elaborate, and in one part composed with really biographical fulness." This peculiarity is not to be accounted for from the nature of the sources which the author had at his command ; for even if we cannot define \\\i\\ pre- cision the nature and extent of these sources, yet when we compare the accounts contained in these books of the wars THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 0 between David and the Ammonites and Syrians with those in the hooks of Chronicles (2 Sam. viii, and x. with 1 Chron. xviii. xix.), we see clearly enough that the sources from which those accounts were derived embraced more than our books have given, since tliere are several places in which the chronicler gives fuller details of historical facts, the truth of which is universally allowed. The preparations for the building of the temple and the organization of the army, as well as the arrange- ment of the official duties of the Levites which David under- took, according to 1 Chron. xxii.-xxviii., in the closing years of his life, cannot possibly have been unknown to the author of our books. Moreover, there are frequent allusions in the books before us to events which are assumed as known, though there is no record of them in the writings which have been handed down to us, such as the removal of the tabernacle from Shiloh, where it stood in the time of Eli (1 Sam. i. 3, 9, etc.), to Nob, where David received the shewbread from the priests on his flight from Saul (ch. xxi. 1 sqq.) ; the massacre of the Gibeonites by Saul, which had to be expiated under David (2 Sam. xxi.) ; the banishment of the necromancers out of the land in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xxviil. 3) ; and the flight of the Beerothites to Gittaim (2 Sam. iv. 3). From this also we must conclude, that the author of our books knew more than he thought it necessary to mention in his work. But we certainly cannot infer from these peculiarities, as has often been done, that our books are to be regarded as a compilation. Such an inference as this simply arises from an utter disregard of the plan and object, which run through both books and regulate the selection and arrangement of the materials they contain. That the work has been composed upon a definite plan, is evident from the grouping of the historical facts, in favour of which the chrono- logical order generally observed in both the books has now and then been sacrificed. Thus, in the history of Saul and the account of his wars (1 Sam. xiv. 47, 48), the fact is also men- tioned, that he smote the Amalekites ; whereas the war itself, in which he smote them, is first described in detail in ch. xv., because it was in that war that he forfeited his kingdom throuffh his transfcression of the divine command, and brought DO . « about his own rejection on the part of God. The sacrifice of the chronological order to the material grouping of kindred 6 INTRODUCTION TO events, is still more evident in the history of David. In 2 Sam. viii. all his wars with foreign nations are collected together, and even the wars with the Syrians and Ammonites are included, together with an account of the booty taken in these wars ; and then after this, viz. in ch. x.-xii., the war with the Ammonites and Syrians is more fully described, including the circum- stances which occasioned it, the course which it took, and David's adultery which occurred during this war. ]\Ioreover, the history of Saul, as well as that of David, is divided into two self-contained periods, answering indeed to the historical course of the reigns of these two kings, but yet so distinctly marked off by the historian, that not only is the turning-point distinctly given in both instances, viz. the rejection of Saul and the grievous fall of David, but each of these periods is rounded off with a comprehensive account of the wars, the family, and the state officials of the two kings (I Sam. xiv. 47-52, and 2 Sam. viii.). So likewise in the history of Samuel, after the victory which the Israelites obtained over the Philistines through his ^prayer, everything that had to be related concerning his life as judge is grouped together in ch. vii. 15-17, before the introduction of the monarchy is described ; although Samuel himself lived till nearly the close of the reign of Saul, and not only instituted Saul as king, but afterwards announced his rejection, and anointed David as his successor. These com- prehensive accounts are anything but proofs of compilations from sources of different kinds, which ignorance of the pecu- liarities of the Semitic style of writing history has led some to regard them as being ; they simply serve to round off the different periods into which the history has been divided, and form resting-places for the historical review, which neither destroy the material connection of the several groups, nor throw any doubt upon the unity of the authorship of the books them- selves. And even where separate incidents appear to be grouped together, without external connection or any regard to chrono- logical order, on a closer inspection it is easy to discover the relation in which they stand to the leading purpose of the whole book, and the reason why they occupy this position and no other (see the introductory remarks to 2 Sam. ix. xxi.-xxiv.). If we look more closely, however, at the contents of these books, in order to determine their character more precisely, we THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 7 find at the very outset, in Hannah's song of praise, a prophetic glance at the anointed of the Lord (eh. ii. 10), which foretells the establishment of the monarchy that was afterwards accom- plished under Saul and David. And with this there is asso- ciated the rise of the new name, Jehovah Sahaoth, which is never met with in the Pentateuch or in the books of Joshua and Judges ; whereas it occurs in the books before us from the commencement (ch. i. 3, 11, etc.) to the close. (For further remarks on the origin and signification of this divine name, see at ch. i. 3.) When Israel received a visible representative of / its invisible God-king in the person of an earthly monarch ; Jehovah, the God of Israel, became the God of the heavenly hosts. Through the establishment of the monarchy, the people of Jehovah's possession became a "world-power;" the kingdom of God was elevated into a kingdom of the world, as distin- guished from the other ungodly kingdoms of the world, which it was eventually to overcome in the power of its God. In this conflict Jehovah manifested himself as the Lord of hosts, to whom all the nations and kingdoms of this world were to become '< subject. Even in the times of Saul and David, the heathen ; nations were to experience a foretaste of this subjection. When Saul had ascended the throne of Israel, he fought against all his enemies round about, and extended his power in every direction in which he turned (ch. i. 14, 47, 48). But David made all the nations who bordered upon the kingdom of God tributary to the people of the Lord, as the Lord gave him victory wherever he went (ch. ii. 8, 14, 15) ; so that his son Solomon reigned over all the kingdoms, from the stream (the Euphrates) to the boundary of Egypt, and they all brought him presents, and were subject to him (1 Kings v. 1). But the Israel- itish monarchy could never thus acquire the power to secure for the kingdom of God a victory over all its foes, except as the kino; himself was diligent in his endeavours to be at all times simply the instrument of the God-king, and exercise his authority solely in the name and according to the will of Jehovah. And as the natural selfishness and pride of man easily made this concentration of the supreme earthly power in a single person merely an occasion for self-aggrandisement, and therefore the Israelitish kings were exposed to the temptation to use the plenary authority entrusted to them even in opposition to the 8 INTRODUCTION TO will of God ; the Lord raised up for Himself organs of His own Spirit, in the persons of the prophets, to stand bj the side of the kings, and make known to them the will and counsel of God. The introduction of the monarchy was therefore pre- ceded "by the development of the prophetic office into a spiritual power in Israel, in which the kingdom was to receive not only a firm support to its own authority, but a strong bulwark against royal caprice and tyranny. Samuel was called by the Lord to be His prophet, to convert the nation that was sunk in idolatry to the Lord its God, and to revive the religious life by the establishment of associations of prophets, since the priests had failed to resist the growing apostasy of the nation, and had become unfaithful to their calling to instruct and establish the congregation in the knowledge and fear of the Lord. Even before the call of Samuel as a prophet, there was foretold to the high priest Eli by a man of God, not only the judgment that would fall upon the degenerate priesthood, but the appointment of a faithful priest, for whom the Lord would build a permanent house, that he might ever walk before His anointed (1 Sam. ii. 27-36). And the first revelation which Samuel received from God had reference to the fulfilment of all that the Lord had spoken against the house of Eli (ch. iii. 11 sqq.). The announcement of a faithful priest, who would walk before the anointed of the Lord, also contained a prediction of the estab- lishment of the monarchy, which foreshadowed its worth and great significance in relation to the further development of the kingdom of God. And whilst these predictions of the anointed of the Lord, before and in connection with the call of Samuel, show the deep spiritual connection which existed between the prophetic order and the regal office in Israel ; the insertion of them in these books is a proof that from the very outset the author had this new orrranization of the Israelitish kingdom of O Ö God before his mind, and that it was his intention not simply to hand down biographies of Samuel, Saul, and David, but to relate the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God at the time of its elevation out of a deep inward and outward decline into the full authority and power of a kingdom of the Lord, before which all its enemies were to be compelled to bow. Israel was to become a kingship of priests, i.e. a kingdom whose citizens were priests and kings. The Lord had announced / THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. - 9 tliis to the sons of Israel before the covenant was concluded at Sinai, as the ultimate object of their adoption as the people of His possession (Ex. xix. 5, 6). Now although this promise reached far beyond the times of the Old Covenant, and will only receive its perfect fulfilment in the completion of the kingdom of God under the New Covenant, yet it was to be realized even in the people of Israel so far as the economy of the Old Testament allowed. Israel was not only to become a priestly nation, but a royal nation also ; not only to be sanctified as a congregation of the Lord, but also to be exalted into a kingdom of God. The establishment of the earthly monarchy, therefore, was not only an eventful turning-point, but also an "epoch-making" advance in the development of Israel towards the goal set before it in its divine calling. And this advance became the pledge of the ultimate attainment of the goal, through the promise which David received from God (2 Sam. vii. 12-16), that the Lord would establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. With this promise God established for His anointed the eternal covenant, to which David reverted at the close of his reign, and upon which he rested his divine an- nouncement of the just ruler over men, the ruler in the fear of God (2 Sam. xxiii. 1—7). Thus the close of these books points back to their commencement. The prophecy of the pious mother of Samuel, that the Lord would give strength unto His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed (1 Sam. ii. 10), found a fulfilment in the kingdom of David, which was at the same time a pledge of the ultimate completion of the kingdom of God under the sceptre of the Son of David, the promised Messiah. This is one, and in fact the most conspicuous, arrangement of the facts connected with the history of salvation, which determined the plan and composition of the work before us. By the side of this there is another, which does not stand out so prominently indeed, but yet must not be overlooked. At the very beginning, viz. in ch. i., the inward decay of the house of God under the high priest Eli is exhibited ; and in the announcement of the judgment upon the house of Eli, a long- continued oppression of the dwelling-place (of God) is foretold (ch. ii. 32). Then, in the further course of the narrative, not |only is the fulfilment of these threats pointed out, in the events 10 INTRODUCTION TO described in 1 Sam. iv., vi. 19-vii. 2, and xxii. 11-19 ; but it is also shown how David first of all brought the ark of the covenant, about which no one had troubled himself in the time of Saul, out of its concealment, had a tent erected for it in the capital of his kingdom upon Mount Zion, and made it once more the central point of the worship of the congregation ; and how after that, when God had given him rest from his enemies, he wished to build a temple for the Lord to be the dwelling- place of His name ; and lastly, when God would not permit him. to carry out this resolution, but promised that his son would build the house of the Lord, how, towards the close of his reign, he consecrated the site for the future temple by build- ing an altar upon Mount Moriah (2 Sam. xxiv. 25). Even in this series of facts the end of the work points back to the be- ginning, so that the arrangement and composition of it accord- ing to a definite plan, which has been consistently carried out, are very apparent. If, in addition to this, we take into account the deep-seated connection between the building of the temple as designed by David, and the confirmation of his monarchy on the part of God as exhibited in 2 Sam. vii., we cannot fail to observe that the historical development of the true kingdom, in accordance with the nature and constitution of the Old Tes- tament kingdom of God, forms the leading thought and purpose of the work to which the name of Samuel has been attached, and that it was by this thought and aim that the writer was influenced throughout in his selection of the historical materials which lay before him in the sources that he employed. The full accounts which are given of the birth and youth of Samuel, and the life of David, are in the most perfect har- mony with this design. The lives and deeds of these two men of God were of significance as laying the foundation for the development and organization of the monarchical kingdom in Israel. Samuel was the model and type of the prophets ; and embodied in his own person the spirit and nature of the pro- phetic office, whilst his attitude towards Saul foreshadowed the position which the prophet M'as to assume in relation to the king. In the life of David, the Lord himself educated the king of His kingdom, the prince over His people, to whom He could continue His favour and grace even when he had fallen so deeply that it was necessary that he should be chastised for THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL, 11 Ills sins. Thus all the separate parts and sections are fused too-ether as an oro;anic whole in the fundamental thouo;lit of the work before us. And this unity is not rendered at all questionable by differences such as we find in the accounts of the mode of Saul's death as described in 1 Sam. xxxi. 4 and, 2 Sam. i. 9, 10, or by such repetitions as the double account of | the death of Samuel, and other phenomena of a similar kindj Avhich can be explained without difficulty ; whereas the asser- tion sometimes made, that there are some events of which we have two different accounts that contradict each other, has never yet been proved, and, as we shall see when we come to the exposition of the passages in question, has arisen partly from unscriptural assumptions, partly from ignorance of the formal peculiarities of the Hebrew mode of writing history, and partly from a mistaken interpretation of the passages themselves. With regard to the 07'igin of the books of Samuel, all that can be maintained with certainty is, that they were not written till after the division of the kingdom under Solomon's succes- sor. This is evident from the remark in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, that ^^ Ziklag pertainetJi unto the kings ofJiidah unto tJiis day." For although David was king over the tribe of Judah alone for seven years, it was not till after the falling away of the ten tribes from the house of David that there were really " kings of Judah." On the other hand, nothing can be inferred with certainty respecting the date of composition, either from the dis- tinction drawn between Israel and Judah in 1 Sam. xi. 8, xvii. 52, xviii. 16, and 2 Sam. iii. 10, xxiv. 1, which evidently existed as early as the time of David, as we may see from 2 Sam. ii. 9, 10, V. 1-5, xix. 41, XX. 2 ; or from the formula " to this day,^ which we find in 1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 18, xxx. 25, 2 Sam. iv. 3, vi. 18, xviii. 18, since the duration of the facts to which it is applied is altogether unknown ; or lastly, from such passages as 1 Sam. ix. 9, 2 Sam. xiii. 18, where explanations are given of expressions and customs belonging to the times of Saul and David, as it is quite possible that they may have been alto- gether changed by the time of Solomon. In general, the con- tents and style of the books point to the earliest times after the division of the kingdom ; since we find no allusions whatever to the decay of the kingdoms which afterwards took place, and still 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. less to the captivity ; whilst the style and language are classical throughout, and altogether free from Chaldaisms and later forms, such as we meet with in the writings of the Chaldean period, and even in those of the time of the captivity. The author himself is quite unknown ; but, judging from the spirit of his writings, he was a prophet of the kingdom of Judah. It is unanimously admitted, however, that he made use of written documents, particularly of prophetic records made by persons who were contemporaries of the events described, not only for the history of the reigns of Saul and David, but also for the life and labours of Samuel, although no written sources are quoted, with the exception of the " book of Jasher," which contained the elegy of David upon Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 18) ; so that the sources employed by him cannot be dis- tinctly pointed out. The different attempts which have been made to determine them minutely, from the time of Eichhorn down to G. Em. Karo (de fontlbus lihrorum qui feruntur Samuelis Dissert. Berol. 1862), are lacking in the necessary proofs which hypotheses must bring before they can meet with adoption and support. If we confine ourselves to the historical evidence, according to 1 Chron. xxix. 29, the first and last acts of king David, i.e. the events of his entire reign, were recorded in the " dihre of Samuel the seer, of Nathan the pro- phet, and of Gad the seer." These prophetic writings formed no doubt the leading sources from which our books of Samuel were also drawn, since, on the one hand, apart from sundry deviations arising from differences in the plan and object of the two authors, the two accounts of the reign of David in 2 Sam. viii.-xxiv. and 1 Chron. xi.-xxi. agree for the most part so thoroughly word for word, that they are generally regarded as extracts from one common source ; whilst, on the other hand, the prophets named not only lived in the time of David but throughout the whole of the period referred to in the books before us, and took a very active part in the progressive de- velopment of the history of those times (see not only 1 Sam. i.-iii. vii.-x. xii. xv. xvi., but also 1 Sam. xix. 18-24, xxii. 5, 2 Sam. vii. 12, xxiv. 11-18). Moreover, in 1 Chron. xxvii. 24, there are "chronicles (diaries or annals) of king David" mentioned, accompanied with the remark that the result of the census appointed by David ^-as not inserted in them, from THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL, CHAP. I.-VII. 13 which we may infer that all the principal events of his reign were included in these chronicles. And they may also have formed one of the sources for our books, although nothing cer- tain can be determined concerning the relation in which they stood to the writings of the three prophets that have been men- tioned. Lastly, it is very evident from the character of the work before us, that the author had sources composed by eye- witnesses of the events at his command, and that these were employed with an intimate knowledge of the facts and with historical fidelity, inasmuch as the history is distinguished by great perspicuity and vividness of description, by a careful delineation of the characters of the persons engaged, and by great accuracy in the accounts of localities, and of subordinate circumstances connected with the historical events. EXPOSITION. I. HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL UNDER THE PROPHET SAMUEL. 1 Sam. i.-vii. The call of Samuel to be the prophet and judge of Israel formed a turning-point in the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God. As the prophet of Jehovah, Samuel was to lead the people of Israel out of the times of the judges into those of the kings, and lay the foundation for a prosperous development of the monarchy. Consecrated like Samson as a Nazarite from his mother's womb, Samuel accomplished the deliverance of Israel out of the power of the Philistines, which had been only conmienced by Samson ; and that not by the physical might of his arm, but by the spiritual power of his word and prayer, with which he led Israel back from the worship of dead idols to the Lord its God. And whilst as one of the judges, among whom he classes himself in 1 Sam. xii. 11, he brought the office of judge to a close, and introduced the monarchy ; as a prophet, he laid the foundation of the pro- phetic office, inasmuch as he was the first to naturalize it, so I 14 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. to speak, in Israel, and develope it into a power that continued henceforth to exert the strongest influence, side by side with the priesthood and monarchy, upon the development of the covenant nation and kingdom of God. For even if there were prophets before the time of Samuel, who revealed the will of the Lord at times to the nation, they only appeared sporadi- cally, without exerting any lasting influence upon the national life ; whereas, from the time of Samuel onwards, the prophets sustained and fostered the spiritual life of the congregation, and were the instruments through whom the Lord made known His purposes to the nation and its rulers. To exhibit in its origin and e;rowtli the new order of things which Samuel intro- duced, or rather the deliverance which the Lord sent to His people through this servant of His, the prophetic historian goes back to the time of Samuel's birth, and makes us acquainted not only with the religious condition of the nation, but also with the political oppression under which it was suffering at the close of the period of the judges, and during the high-priest- hood of Eli. At the time when the pious parents of Samuel were going year by year to the house of God at Shiloli to worship and offer sacrifice before the Lord, the house of God was being profaned by the abominable conduct of Eli's sons (ch. i. ii.). When Samuel was called to be tlie prophet of Jehovah, Israel lost the ark of the covenant, the soul of its sanctuary, in the war with the Philistines (ch. iii. iv.). And it was not till after the nation had been rendered willing to put away its strange gods and worship Jehovah alone, through the influence of Samuel's exertions as prophet, that the faithful covenant God gave it, in answer to Samuel's intercession, a complete victory over the Philistines (ch. vii.). In accordance with these three prominent features, the history of the judicial life of Samuel may be divided into three sections, viz. : ch. i. ii. ; ili.-vi. ; and vii. Samuel's birth and dedicatiox to the lord, hannah's SONG OF praise. — CHAP. I.-II. 10. While Eli the high priest was judging Israel, and at the time when Samson was becrinnina; to fio;ht against the Philistines, a pious Israelitish woman prayed to the Lord for a son (vers CHAP. I. 1-8. 15 1-18). Her prayer was heard. She bore a son, to whom she gave the name of Samuel, because he had been asked for from the Lord. As soon as lie was weaned, she dedicated him to the Lord for a hfelong service (vers. 19-28), and praised the Lord in a song of prophetic character for the favour which He had shown to His people through hearkening to her prayer (ch. ii. 1-10). Vers. 1—8. SamueTs pedigree. — Ver. 1. His father was a man of Ramathaim-Zophim, on the mountains of Ephraim, and named Elkanah. Ramathaim-Zcpldm, which is only mentioned here, is the same place, according to ver. 3 (comp, with ver. 19 and ch. ii. 11), which is afterwards called briefly ha-RamaJi, i.e. the height. For since Elkanah of Ramathaim-Zophim went year by year out of his city to Shiloh, to worship and sacrifice there, and after he had done this, returned to his house to Ramah (ver. 19, ch. ii. 11), there can be no doubt that he was not only a native of Eamathaim-Zophim, but still had his home there ; so that Ramah, where his house was situated, is only an abbreviated name for Ramathaim-Zophim.^ This Ramah (which is invariably written with the article, ha-Ramah), where Samuel was not only born (vers. 19 sqq.), but lived, laboured, died (ch. vii. 17, XV. 34, xvi. 13, xix. 18, 19, 22, 23), and was buried (ch. xxv. 1, xxviii. 3), is not a different place, as has been frequently assumed,^ from the Ramah in Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 25), and is not to be sought for in Ramleh near Joppa (v. Schubert, etc.), nor in Soba on the north-west of Jerusalem (Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 329), nor three-quarters of an hour to the north of Hebron (Wolcott, v. de Velde), nor anywhere else in the tribe of Ephraim, but is identical with Ramah of Benjamin, ^ The argument lately adduced by Valentiner in favour of the difference between these two names, viz. that " examples are not wanting of a person being described according to his original descent, although his dwelling- place had been already changed," and the instance which he cites, viz. Judg. xix. 16, show that he has overlooked the fact, that in the very pas- sage which he quotes the temporary dwelling-place is actually mentioned along with the native town. In the case before us, on the contrary, Ramathaim-Zophim is designated, by the use of the expression " from his city," in ver. 3, as the place where Elkanah lived, and where " his house" (ver. 19) was still standing. 2 For the different views which have been held upon this point, see the article " Ramah," by Pressel, in Herzog's Cyclopxdia. 16 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. and was situated upon the site of the present village of er-Räm. two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, upon a conical mountain to the east of the Nablus road (see at Josh, xviii. 25). This, supposition is neither at variance with the account in ch, ix. X. (see the commentary upon these chapters), nor with the statement that Eamathaim-Zophim was upon the mountains of Ephraim, since the mountains of Ephraim extended into the tribe-territory of Benjamin, as is indisputably evident from Judg. iv. 5, where Deborah the prophetess is said to have dwelt between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. The name Ramathaim-Zophim, i.e. " the two heights (of the) Zophites," appears to have been given to the town to distinguish it from other Ramahs, and to have been derived from the Levitical . family of Zuph or Zophai (see 1 Chron. vi. 26, 35), which emigrated thither from the tribe of Ephraim, and from which Elkanah was descended. The full name, therefore, is given here, in the account of the descent of Samuel's father ; whereas in the further history of Samuel, where there was no longer the same reason for giving it, the simple name Raraali is invariably used.^ The connection between Zophim and Zuph is confirmed by the fact that Elkanah's ancestor, Zuph, is called Zophai in 1 Chron. vi. 26, and Zuph or Zipli in 1 Chron. vi. 35. Zophim therefore signifies the descendants of Zuph or Zophai, from which the name " land of Zuph," in ch. ix. 5, was also derived (see the commentary on this passage). The tracing back of Elkanah's family through four generations to Zuph agrees with the family registers in 1 Chron. vi., where the ancestors of Elkanah are mentioned twice, — first of all in the genealogy of the Kohathites (ver. 2G), and then in that of Ileman, the leader of the singers, a grandson of Samuel (ver. ^ The fuller and more exact name, however, appears to have been still retained, and the use of it to have been revived after the captivity, in the 'Fxfixöi/it. of 1 Mace. xi. 34, for -which the Codd. have Pocöa/xstu and ' Px/u,cii6a'i]u,, and Josephus 'P«^«^«, and in the Arinaathsea of the gospel history (Matt, xxvii. 57). " For the opinion that this Ramathaim is a different place from the city of Samuel, and is to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Lydda, which Robinson advocates (Pal. iii. pp. 41 sqq.), is a hasty conclusion, drawn from the association of Ramathaim with Lydda in 1 Mace. xi. 34, — the very same conclusion which led the author of the Omrriasiicon to transfer th.e city of Samuel to the neighbourhood of Lydda" (Grimm on 1 Mace. xi. 34). CHAP. I. 1-8. 17 33), — except that the names Elihu, Tohu, and Zuph, are given as Eliab, Nahath, and Zophai in the first instance, and Eliel, Toah, and Ziph (according to the Chethihli) in the second, — various readings, such as often occur in the different genealo- gies, and are to be explained partly from the use of different forms for the same name, and partly from their synonymous meanings. Toliu and Toah, which occur in Arabic, with the meaning to press or sink in, are related in meaning to nachath or nuach, to sink or settle down. From these genealogies in the Chronicles, we learn that Samuel was descended from Kohath, the son of Levi, and therefore was a Levite. It is no valid objection to the correctness of this view, that his Levitical descent is never mentioned, or that Elkanah is called an Ephra- thite. The former of these can very easily be explained from the fact, that Samuel's work as a reformer, which is described in this book, did not rest upon his Levitical descent, but simply upon the call which he had received from God, as the pro- phetic office was not confined to any particular class, like that of priest, but was founded exclusively upon the divine calling and endowment with the Spirit of God. And the difficulty which Nägelsbach expresses in Herzog's Cycl., viz, that " as it was stated of those two Levites (Judg. xvii. 7, xix. 1), that they lived in Bethlehem and Ephraim, but only after they had been expressly described as Levites, we should have expected to find the same in the case of Samuel's father," is removed by the simple fact, that in the case of both those Levites it was of great importance, so far as the accounts which are given of them are concerned, that their Levitical standing should be distinctly mentioned, as is clearly shown by Judg. xvii. 10, 13, and xix. 18 ; whereas in the case of Samuel, as we have already observed, his Levitical descent had no bearing upon the call which he received from the Lord. The word Ephrathite does' not belong, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned, either to Ziiph or Elkanah, but to " a certain ma7i," the subject of the principal clause, and signifies an Ephraimite, as in Judg. xii, 5 and 1 Kings xi. 26, and not an inhabitant of Ephratah, i.e. a Bethlehemite, as in ch. xvii. 12 and Ruth i. 2 ; for in both these passages the word is more precisely defined by the addition of the expression " of Bethlehem-Judah," whereas in this verse the explanation is to be found in the expression " of B 18 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Mount Ephraim." Elkanah the Levite is called an Ephraimite, because, so far as his civil standing was concerned, he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, just as the Levite in Judg. xvii. 7 is described as belonging to the family of Judah. The Levites were reckoned as belonging to those tribes in the midst of which they lived, so that there were Judgean Levites, Ephraimitish Levites, and so on (see Hengstenberg, Diss. vol. ii. p. 50). It by no means follows, however, from the application of this term to Elkanah, that Eamathaim-Zophim formed part of the tribe- territpry of Ephraim, but simply that Elkanah's family was incorporated in this tribe, and did not remove till afterwards to Ramah in the tribe of Benjamin. On the division of the land, dwelling-places were allotted to the Levites of the family of Kohath, in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh (Josh, xxi. 5, 21 sqq.). Still less is there anything at variance with the Levitical descent of Samuel, as Thenius maintains, in the fact that he was dedicated to the Lord by his mother's vow , for he was not dedicated to the service of Jehovah generally through this vow, but was set apart to a lifelong service at the house of God as a Nazarite (vers. 11, 22) ; whereas other Levites were not required to serve till their twenty-fifth year, and even then had not to perform an uninterrupted service at the sanc- tuary. On the other hand, the Levitical descent of Samuel receives a very strong confirmation from his father's name. All the Elkanahs that we meet with in the Old Testament, with the exception of the one mentioned in 2 Chron. xxviii. 7, whose genealogy is unknown, can be proved to have been Levites; and most of them belong to the family of Korah, from which Samuel was also descended (see Simonis, Onomast. p. 493). This is no doubt connected in some way with the meaning of the name Elkanah, the man whom God has bought or acquired ; since such a name was peculiarly suitable to the Levites, whom the Lord had set apart for service at the sanctuary, in the place of the first-born of Israel, whom He had sanctified to himself when He smote the first-born of Egypt (Num. iii. 13 sqq., 44 sqq. ; see Hengstenberg, ut sup.). — Vers. 2, 3. Elkanah had two wives, Hannah (grace or gracefulness) and Peninnah (coral), the latter of whom was blessed with children, whereas the first was childless. He went with his wives year by year ('"'ö''»^ '^"'9'^j as in Ex. xiii. 10, Judg. xi. 40), according to the instructions CHAP. I. 1-8. 19 of the law (Ex. xxxiv. 23, Deut. xvi. 16), to the tabernacle at Shiloh (Josh, xviii. 1), to worship and sacrifice to the Lord of hosts. ^^ Jehovah Zebaoth^' is an abbreviation of '^Jehovah Elohe Zehaoth,'^ or riiJ522;n \ipx nin"; ; and the connection of Zehaoth with Jehovah is not to be regarded as the construct state, nor is Zebaoth to be taken as a genitive dependent upon Jehovah. This is not only confirmed by the occurrence of such expressions as " Elohim Zebaoth" (Ps. lix. 6, Ixxx. 5, 8, 15, 20, Ixxxiv. 9) and " Adonai Zebaoth" (Isa. x. 16), but also by the circumstance that Jehovah, as a proper name, cannot be con- strued with a genitive. The combination " Jehovah Zebaoth" is rather to be taken as an ellipsis, where the general term Elohe (God of), which is implied in the word Jehovah, is to be sup- plied in thought (see Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 375, English translation) ; for frequently as this expression occurs, especially in the case of the prophets, Zebaoth is never used alone in the Old Testament as one of the names of God. It is in the Sep- tuagint that the word is first met with occasionally as a proper name {Saßacoö), viz. throughout the whole of the first book of Samuel, very frequently in Isaiah, and also in Zech. xiii. 2. In other passages, the word is translated either Kvpio^, or 6eo^ roiv Buvd/xeoov, or TravTotcpdrcop ; whilst the other Greek versions use the more definite phrase Kvpio^ aTpariSiv instead. This expression, which was not used as a divine name until the age of Samuel, had its roots in Gen. ii. 1, although the title itself was unknown in the Mosaic period, and during the times of the judges (see p. 7). It represented Jehovah as ruler over the heavenly hosts (i.e. the angels, according to Gen. xxxii. 2, and the stars, according to Isa. xl. 26), who are called the " armies" of Jehovah in Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2 ; but we are not to understand it as implying that the stars were supposed to be inhabited by angels, as Gesenius {Thes. s. v.) maintains, since there is not the slightest trace of any such notion in the whole of the Old Testament. It is simply applied to Jehovah as the God of the universe, who governs all the powers of heaven, both visible and invisible, as He rules in heaven and on earth. It cannot even be proved that the epithet Lord, or God of Zebaoth, refers chiefly and generally to the sun, moon, and stars, on account of their being so peculiarly adapted, through their visible splendour, to keep alive the consciousness of the 20 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. omnipotence and gloiy of God (Hengstenberg on Ps. xxiv. 10). For even though the expression C3X3y (their host), in Gen. ii. 1, refers to the heavens only, since it is only to the heavens {yid. Isa. xl. 26), and never to the earth, that a " host" is ascribed, and in this particular passage it is probably only the stars that are to be thought of, the creation of which had already been men- tioned in Gen. i. 14 sqq. ; yet we find the idea of an army of angels introduced in the history of Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 2, 3), where Jacob calls the angels of God who appeared to him the " camp of God," and also in the blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 2), where the " ten thousands of saints" (Kodesh) are not stai's, but angels, or heavenly spirits ; whereas the fighting of the stars against Sisera in the song of Deborah probably refers to a natural phenomenon, by which God had thrown the enemy into confusion, and smitten them before the Israelites (see at Judg. v. 20). We must also bear in mind, that whilst an the one hand the tribes of Israel, as they came out of Egypt, are called Zebaoth Jehovah, " the hosts of Jehovah" (Ex. vii. 4, xii. 41), on the other hand the angel of the Lord, when appear- ing in front of Jericho in the form of a warrior, made himself known to Joshua as " the prince of the army of Jehovah," i.e. of the angelic hosts. And it is in this appearance of the heavenly leader of the people of God to the earthly leader of the hosts of Israel, as the prince of the angelic hosts, not only promising him the conquest of Jericho, but through the mira- culous overthrow of the walls of this strong bulwark of the Canaanitish power, actually giving him at the same time a prac- tical proof that the prince of the angelic hosts was fighting for Israel, that we have the material basis upon which the divine epithet " Jehovah God of hosts" was founded, even though it was not introduced immediately, but only at a later period, when the Lord began to form His people Israel into a kingdom, by which all the kingdoms of the heathen were to be overcome. It is certainly not without significance that this title is given to God for the first time in these books, which contain an account of the founding of the kingdom, and (as Auberlen has observed) that it was by Samuel's mother, the pious Hannah, when dedicating her son to the Lord, and prophesying of the king and anointed of the Lord in her song of praise (ch. ii. 10), that this name was employed for the first time, and that God CHAP. I. 1-8. 21 was addressed in prayer as "Jehovah of hosts" (ver. 11). Consequently, if this name of God goes hand in hand with the prophetic announcement and the actual establishment of the monarchy in Israel, its origin cannot be attributed to any anta- gonism to Sabseism, or to the hostility of pious Israelites to the worship of the stars, which was gaining increasing ground in the age of David, as Hengstenberg (on Ps. xxiv. 10) and Strauss (on Zeph. ii. 9) maintain ; to say nothing of the fact, that there is no historical foundation for such an assumption at all. It is a much more natural supposition, that when the invisible sovereignty of Jehovah received a visible manifesta- tion in the establishment of the earthly monarchy, the sove- reignty of Jehovah, if it did possess and was to possess any reality at all, necessarily claimed to be recognised in its all- embracing power and glory, and that in the title " God of (the heavenly) hosts" the fitting expression was formed for the universal government of the God-king of Israel, — a title which not only served as a bulwark against any eclipsing of the invisible sovereignty of God by the earthly monarchy in Israel, but overthrew the vain delusion of the heathen, that the God of Israel was simply the national deity of that particular nation.^ The remark introduced in ver. 35, " and there were the tioo sons of Eli, Ilophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord" i.e. performing the duties of the priesthood, serves as a preparation for what follows. This reason for the remark sufficiently explains why the sons of Eli only are mentioned here, and not Eli himself, since, although the latter still presided over the sanctuary as high priest, he was too old to perform the duties connected with the offering of sacrifice. The addition made by the LXX., 'H\l Koi, is an arbitrary interpolation, occasioned by a misapprehension of the reason for mentioning the sons of Eli. — Vers. 4, 5. " And it came to pass, the day, and he ^ This name of God was therefore held up before the people of the Lord even in their war-songs and paeans of victory, but still more by the prophets, as a banner under which Israel was to fight and to conquer the world. Ezekiel is the only prophet who does not use it, simply because he follows the Pentateuch so strictly in his style. And it is not met with in the book of Job, just because the theocratic constitution of the Israelitish nation is never referred to in the problem of that book. 22 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. offered sacrifice" (for, "on which he offered sacrifice"), that he gave to Peninnah and her children portions of the flesh of the sacrifice at the sacrificial meal ; but to Hannah he gave D"|öN.nns njDj "one portion for hi'o persons,^* i.e. a double portion, because he loved her, but Jehovah had shut up her womb : i.e. he gave it as an expression of his love to her, to indicate by a sign, " thou art as dear to me as if thou hadst born me a child" (0. v. Gerlach). This explanation of the difficult word ^1^^, of which very different interpretations have been given, is the one adopted by Tanchum Hieros., and is the only one which can be grammatically sustained, or yields an appropriate sense. The meaning face {fades) is placed beyond all doubt by Gen. iii. 19 and other passages ; and the use of ""Si^p as a synonym for ''JQp in ch. xxv. 23, also establishes the meaning " person," since D"'33 is used in this sense in 2 Sam. xvii. 11. It is true that there are no other passages that can be adduced to prove that the singular ^^ was also used in this sense ; but as the word was employed promis- cuously in both singular and plural in the derivative sense of anger, there is no reason for denying that the singular may also have been employed in the sense of face (TrpoacoTrov). The combination of D^Si< with rins n:o in the absolute state is sup- ported by many other examples of the same kind (see Ewald, § 287, h). The meaning double has been correctly adopted in the Syriac, whereas Luther follows the tristis of the Vulgate, and renders the word traurig, or sad. But this -meaning, which Fr. Böttcher has lately taken under his protection, cannot be philologically sustained either by the expression ^"'^Q vD3 (Gen. iv. 6), or by Dan. xi. 20, or in any other way. ^{< and D^S5< do indeed signify anger, but anger and sadness are two very different ideas. But when Böttcher substitutes " angrily or unwillingly" for sadly, the incongruity strikes you at once: "he gave her a portion unwillingly, because he loved her!" For the custom of singling out a person by giving double or even large portions, see the remarks on Gen. xliii. 34. — Ver. 6. " And her adversary (Peninnah) also provoked her with provo^ cation, to irritate herT The DS is placed before the noun belonging to the verb, to add force to the meaning. DJ?"] {Hiphil), to excite, put into (inward) commotion, not exactly to make angry. — Ver. 7. " So did he (Elkanah) from year to year CHAP. I. 9-18. 23 (namely give to Hannah a double portion at the sacrificial ineal), as often as she loent up to the house of the Lord. So did she (Peninnah) provoke her (Hannah), so that she wept, and did not eat." The two )3 correspond to one another. Just as Elkanah showed his love to Hannah at every sacrificial festival, so did Peninnah repeat her provocation, the effect of which was that Hannah gave vent to her grief in tears, and did not eat. — Ver. 8. Elkanah sought to comfort her in her grief by the affectionate appeal: '^ Am I not better to thee (niLD, i.e. dearer) than ten children?" Ten is a round number for a large number. Vers. 9-18. HannaNs prayer for a son. — Vers. 9-11. " After the eating at Shiloh, and after the drinking" i.e. after the sacrificial meal was over, Hannah rose up with a troubled heart, to pour out her grief in prayer before God, whilst Eli was sitting before the door-posts of the palace of Jehovah, and vowed this vow : " Lord of Zebaoth, if Thou regardest the distress of Thy maiden, and givest men's seed to Thy maiden, I will give him to the Lord all his life long, and no razor shall come upon his head." The choice of the infinitive absolute nhK^ instead of the infinitive construct is analogous to the com- bination of two nouns, the first of which is defined by a suffix, and the second written absolutely (see e.g. ri"iop ""^y, Ex. xv. 2 ; cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, and Ewald, § 339, b). The words from yV] onwards to t^DJ nno form two circumstantial clauses inserted in the main sentence, to throw light upon the situation and the further progress of the affair. The tabernacle is called " the palace of Jehovah " (cf. ch. ii. 22), not on account of the magnificence and splendour of the building, but as the dwelling- place of Jehovah of hosts, the God-king of Israel, as in Ps. v. 8, etc. nnro is probably a porch, which had been placed before the curtain that formed the entrance into the holy place, when the tabernacle was erected permanently at Shiloh. JJ'Sj) fllO, troubled in soul (cf. 2 Kings iv. 27). nsan nbni is really subordinate to *P, from pVH = P^J) of the earth are the LorcCs ; i.e. they were created or set up by Him, and by Him they are sustained. Now as Jehovah, the God of Israel, the Holy One, governs the world with His almighty power, the righteous have nothing to fear. With this thought the last strophe of the song begins : Ver. 9. The feet of His saints He will keep, And the wicked perish in darkness ; For by power no one becomes strong. 10. The Lord — those who contend against Him are confounded. He thunders above him in the heavens ; The Lord will judge the ends of the earth, That He may lend might to His king, And exalt the horn of His anointed. The Lord keeps the feet of the righteous, so that they do not tremble and stumble, i.e. so that the righteous do not fall into adversity and perish therein {yid. Ps. Ivi. 14, cxvi. 8, cxxi. 3). But the wicked, who oppress and persecute the righteous, will perish in dai'kness, i.e. in adversity, when God withdraws the light of His grace, so that they fall into distress and cala- mity. For no man can be strong through his own power, so as to meet the storms of life. All who fight against the Lord are destroyed. To bring out the antithesis between man and God, " Jehovah" is written absolutely at the commencement of the sentence in ver. 10 : '^ As for Jehovah, those who contend against Him are hrohen,^^ both inwardly and outwardly (^nn, as in ver. 4). The word 1?y, which follows, is not to be changed into DHyy. There is simply a rapid alternation of the numbers, such as we frequently meet with in excited language. ^^ Above him" i.e. above every one who contends against God, He thunders. Thunder is a premonitory sign of the approach of the Lord to judgment. In the thunder, man is made to feel in an alarming way the presence of the omnipotent God. In the words, " The Lord will judge the ends of the earth," i.e. the earth to its utmost extremities, or the whole world, Hannah's C 34 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. prayer rises up to a prophetic glance at the consummation of the kingdom of God. As certainly as the Lord God keeps the righteous at all times, and casts down the wicked, so certainly will He judge the whole world, to hurl down all His foes, and perfect His kingdom which He has founded in Israel. And as every kingdom culminates in its throne, or in the full might and government of a king, so the kingdom of God can only attain its full perfection in the king whom the Lord will give to His people, and endow with His might. The king, or the anointed of the Lord, of whom Hannah prophesies in the spirit, is not one single king of Israel, either David or Christ, but an ideal kmg, though not a mere personification of the throne about to be established, but the actual king whom Israel received in David and his race, which culminated in the Messiah. The exaltation of the horn of the anointed of Jehovah commenced with the victorious and splendid expansion of the power of David, was repeated with every victory over the enemies of God and His kingdom gained by the successive kings of David's house, goes on in the advancing spread of the king- dom of Christ, and will eventually attain to its eternal con- summation in the judgment of the last day, through which all the enemies of Christ will be made His footstool. Samuel's service before eli. ungodliness of eli's sons. denunciation of judgment upon eli and his house. — CHAP. II, 11-3G. Vers. 11-17. Samuel the servant of the Lord under Eli. Ungodliness of the sons of Eli. — Ver. 11 forms the transition to what follows. After Hannah's psalm of thanksgiving, E'.kanah went back with his family to his home at Ramah, and the boy (Samuel) was serving, i.e. ministered to the Lord, in the presence of Eli the priest. The fact that nothing is said about Elkanah's wives going with him, does not warrant the interpre- tation given by Thenius, that Elkanah went home alone. It was taken for granted that his wives went with him, according to ch. i. 21 (" all his house"). nin)-nx n"}}^, which signifies literally, both here and in ch. iii. 1, to serve the Lord, and which is used interchangeably with '" \^?"nx fin^ (ver. 18), to serve in the presence of the Lord, is used to denote the duties CHAP. II. 11-17. 35 performed both by priests and Levites in connection with the worship of God, in which Samuel took part, as he grew up, under the superintendence of Eli and according to his instruc- tions.— Ver. 12. But Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas (ver. 34), were ^Vl^^ "'p^^ worthless fellows, and knew not the Lord, sc. as He should be known, i.e. did not fear Him, or trouble them- selves about Him (vid. Job xviii. 21 ; Hos. viii. 2, xiii. 4), — Vers. 13, 14. " Ä7id the right of the priests towards the people teas (the following)." Mishpat signifies the right which they had usurped to themselves in relation to the people. " If any one hroxight a sacrifice (n3T ri2f 5i^'''X~P3 is placed first, and con- strued absolutely : * as for every one who brought a slain- offering'), the pries£s servant (lit. young man) came lohile the ßesh was hailing, with a thi^ee-pronged fork in his hand, and thrust into the kettle, or pot, or howl, or saucepan. A II that the fork brought up the priest took. This they did to all the Israelites toho came thither to Shiloh." — Vers. 15, 16. They did still worse. " Even befolge the fat loas consumed," i.e. before the fat portions of the sacrifice had been placed in the altar-fire for the Lord (Lev. iii. 3-5), the priest's servant came and demanded flesh of the person sacrificing, to be roasted for the priest; "for he will not take hoiled ßesh of thee, but only ''H, raio, i.e. fresh meat." And if the person sacrificing replied, " They toill burn the fat directly (lit. ' at this time,' as in Gen. xxv. 31, 1 Kings xxii. 5), then take for thyself, as thy soul desireth," he said, " Vo (ii? for N7), but thou shalt give now ; if not, I take by forced These abuses were practised by the priests in connection with the thank-offeriniTS, with which a sacrificial meal was associated. Of these offerings, the portion which legally fell to the priest as his share was the heave-leg and wave-breast. And this he was to receive after the fat portions of the sacrifice had been burned upon the altar (see Lev. vii. 30-34). To take the flesh of the sacrificial animal and roast it before this offering had been made, was a crime which was equivalent to a robbery of God, and is therefore referred to here with the emphatic particle D3, as being the worst crime that the sons of Eli committed. Moreover, the priests could not claim any of the flesh which the offerer of the sacrifice boiled for the sacrificial meal, after burning the fat portions upon the altar and giving up the portions which belonged to them, to say nothing of their taking it forcibly out 36 ' THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. of the pots while it was being boiled. — Ver. 17. Such conduct as this on the part of the young men (the priests' servants), was a great sin in the sight of the Lord, as they thereby brought the sacrifice of the Lord into contempt, fi^^, causative, to bring into contempt, furnish occasion for blaspheming (as in 2 Sam. xii. 14). " The robbery which they committed was a small sin in comparison with the contempt of the sacrifices themselves, which they were the means of spreading among the people" (O. V. G erlach). Mincliali does not refer here to the meat- offering as the accompaniment to the slain-offerings, but to the sacrificial offering generally, as a gift presented for the Lord. Vers. 18-21. SamueVs service before the Lord. — Ver. 18. Samuel served as a boy before the Lord by the side of the worthless sons of Eli, girt with an ephod of white material ("i^^ see at Ex. xxviii. 42). The ephod was a shoulder-dress, no doubt resembling the high priest's in shape (see Ex. xxviii. 6 sqq.), but altogether different in the material of which it was made, viz. simple white cloth, like the other articles of clothing that were worn by the priests. At that time, according to ch. xxii. 18, all the priests wore clothing of this kind ; and, accord- ing to 2 Sam. vi. 14, David did the same on the occasion of a religious festival. Samuel received a dress of this kind even when a boy, because he was set apart to a lifelong service before the Lord. "^JH is the technical expression for putting on the ephod, because the two pieces of which it was composed were girt round the body with a girdle. — Ver. 19. The small •''•yp also {Angl. "coat"), which Samuel's mother made and brought him every year, when she came with her husband to Shiloh to the yearly sacrifice, was probably a coat resembling the meil of the high priest (Ex. xxviii. 31 sqq.), but was made of course of some simpler material, and without the symbolical ornaments attached to the lower hem, by which that official dress was distinguished. — Ver. 20. The priestly clothing of the youthful Samuel was in harmony with the spiritual relation in which he stood to the high priest and to Jehovah. Eli blessed his parents for having given up the boy to the Lord, and expressed this wish to the father : " The Lord, lend thee seed of this woman in the place of the one ashed for (npx^n), ivhom they (one) asked for from the T^ordr The striking use of the third pers. masc. ?NK^' instead of the second singular or plural may be CHAP. II. 22-26. 37 accounted for on the supposition tliat it is an indefinite form of speech, which the writer chose because, although it was Hannah who prayed to the Lord for Samuel in the sight of Eli, yet Eli might assume that the father, Elkanah, had shared the wishes of his pious wufe. The apparent harshness disappears at once if we substitute the passive ; whereas in Hebrew active con- structions were always preferred to passive, wherever it was possible to employ them (Ewald, § 294, b). The singular suffix attached to iüip?pp after the plural I2?n may be explained on the simple ground, that a dwelling-place is determined by the husband, or master of the house. — Ver. 21. The particle "'S, "/or" (Jehovah visited), does not mean if, as, or when, nor is it to be regarded as a copyist's error. It is only necessary to supply the thought contained in the words, . " J^li blessed El- kanah," viz. that Eli's blessing was not an empty fruitless wish ; and to understand the passage in some such way as this : Eli's word was fulfilled, or still more simply, ther/ went to their home blessed; for Jehovah visited Hannah, blessed her with " three sons and two daughters ; but the boy Samuel grew up with the Lord," i.e. near to Him (at the sanctuary), and under His protection and blessing. Vers. 22-2 G. Elis treatment of the sins of his sons. — Ver. 22. The aged Eli reproved his sons with solemn warnings on account of their sins ; but without his warnings being listened to. From the reproof itself we learn, that beside the sin noticed in vers. 12-17, they also committed the crime of lying with the women who served at the tabernacle (see at Ex. xxxviii. 8), and thus profaned the sanctuary with whoredom. But Eli, with the infirmities of his old age, did nothing further to pre- vent these abominations than to say to his sons, " Why do ye accoi'ding to the sayings which I hear, sayings about you which are evil, of this whole people." Ü''i?"^ Q?'''?.r'"l""l^ is inserted to make the meaning clearer, and 'n"73 D^D is dependent upon ypb'. " This whole people" signifies all the people that came to Shiloh, and heard and saw the wicked doings there. — Ver. 24. ""JB ?Xj " not, my sons," i.e. do not such things, "for the report which I hear is not good; they make the people of Jehovah to transgress." D'^l^yo is written without the pronoun D^^^ in an indefinite construction, like ^''n^C'O in ch. vi. 3 (Maurer). Ewald's rendering as given by Thenius, " The report which I 38 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. hear the people of God bring," is just as inadmissible as the one proposed by Böttcher, " The report which, as I hear, the people of God are spreading." The assertion made by Thenius, that "'''^i^'^j without any further definition, cannot mean to cause to sin or transgress, is correct enough no doubt ; but it does not prove that this meaning is inadmissible in the passage before us, since the further definition is actually to be found in the context. — Ver. 25. ^^ If man sins against man, God judges him; hut if a man sins against JeJwvah, who can interpose with entreat^/ for him?" In the use of i^ps and i?"?>'3n'; there is a parono- masia which cannot be reproduced in our language. ??2) signi- fies to decide or pass sentence (Gen. xlviii. 11), then to arbitrate, to settle a dispute as arbitrator (Ezek. xvi. 52, Ps. cvi. 30), and in the Hithpael to act as mediator, hence to entreat. And these meanings are applicable here. In the case of one man's sin against another, God settles the dispute as arbitrator through the proper authorities ; whereas, when a man sins against God, no one can interpose as arbitrator. Such a sin cannot be dis- posed of by intercession. But Eli's sons did not listen to this admonition, which was designed to reform daring sinners with mild words and representations ; "/or," adds the historian, ^^ Jehovah was resolved to slay them." The father's reproof made no impression upon them, because they were already given up to the judgment of hardening. (On hardening as a divine sentence, see the discussions at Ex. iv. 21.) — Ver. 26. The youthful Samuel, on the other hand, continued to grow in statui'e, and in favour with God- and man (see Lev. ii. 52). Vers. 27-36. Announcement of the judgment upon Eli and his house. — Ver. 27. Before the Lord interposed in judgment, He sent a prophet (a " maji of God" as in Judg. xiii. 6) to the aged Eli, to announce as a warning for all ages the judgment which was about to fall upon the worthless priests of his house. In order to arouse Eli's own conscience, he had pointed out to him, on the one hand, the grace manifested in the choice of his father's house, i.e. the house of Aaron, to keep His sanc- tuary (vers. 276 and 28), and, on the other hand, the desecra- tion of the sanctuary by the wickedness of his sons (ver. 29). Then follows the sentence : The choice of the family of Aaron still stood fast, but the deepest disgrace would come upon the despisers of the Lord (ver. 30) : the strength of his house CHAP. II. 27-36. 39 would be broken ; all the members of Ins house were to die early deaths. They were not, however, to be removed entirely fi'om service at the altar, but to their sorrow were to survive the fall of the sanctuary (vers. 31-34). But the Lord would raise up a faithful priest, and cause him to walk before His anointed, and from him all that were left of the house of Eli would be obliged to beg their bread (vers. 35, 36). To arrive at the true interpretation of this announcement of punishment, we must picture to ourselves the historical circumstances that come into consideration here. Eli the high priest was a de- scendant of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, as we may see from the fact that his great-grandson Ahimelech was " of the sons of Ithamar" (1 Chron. xxiv, 3). In perfect agreement with this, Josephus (Ant. v. 11, 5) relates, that after the high priest Ozi of the family of Eleazar, Eli of the family of Ithamar received the high-priesthood. The circumstances which led to the transfer of this honour from the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar are unknown. We cannot imagine it to have been occasioned by an extinction of the line of Eleazar, for the simple reason that, in the time of David, Zadok the descendant of Eleazar is spoken of as high priest along with Abiathar and Ahimelech, the descendants of Eli (2 Sam. viii. 17, XX. 25). After the deposition of Abiathar he was reinstated by Solomon as sole high priest (1 Kings ii. 27), and the dignity was transmitted to his descendants. This fact also overthrows the conjecture of Clericus, that the transfer of the high-priesthood to Eli took place by the command of God on account of the grievous sins of the high priests of the line of Eleazar ; for in that case Zadok would not have received this office again in connection with Abiathar. We have, no doubt, to search for the true reason in the circumstances of the times of the later judges, namely in the fact that at the death of the last high priest of the family of Eleazar before the time of Eli, the remaining son was not equal to the occasion, either because he was still an infant, or at any rate because he was too young and inexperienced, so that he could not enter upon the office, and Eli, who was probably related by marriage to the high priest's family, and Avas no doubt a vigorous man, was com- pelled to take the oversight of the congregation ; and, together with the supreme administration of the affairs of the nation as 40 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. judge, received tlie post of high priest as well, and filled it till the time of his death, simply because in those troublous times there was not one of the descendants of Eleazar who was able to fill the supreme office of judge, which was combined with that of high priest. For we cannot possibly think of an unjust usurpation of the office of high priest on the part of Eli, since the very judgment denounced against him and his house pre- supposes that he had entered upon the office in a just and upright way, and that the wickedness of his sons was all that was brought against him. For a considerable time after the death of Eli the high-priesthood lost almost all its significance. All Israel turned to Samuel, whom the Lord established as Plis prophet by means of revelations, and whom He also chose as the deliverer of His people. The tabernacle at Shiloh, which ceased to be the scene of the gracious presence of God after the loss of the ark, was probably presided over first of all after Eli's death by his grandson Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, as his successor in the high-priesthood. He was followed in the time of Saul by his son Ahijah or Ahimelech, who gave David the shew-bread to eat at Nob, to which the tabernacle had been removed in the meantime, and was put to death by Saul in consequence, along with all the priests who were found there. His son Abiathar, however, escaped the massacre, and fled to David (ch. xxii. 9-20, xxiii. 6). In the reign of David he is mentioned as high priest along with Zadok ; but he was after- wards deposed by Solomon (2 Sam. xv. 24, xvii. 15, xix. 12, XX. 25 ; 1 Kings ii. 27). Different interpretations have been given of these verses. The majority of commentators understand them as signifying that the loss of the high-priesthood is here foretold to Eli, and also the institution of Zadok in the office. But such a view is too contracted, and does not exhaust the meaning of the words. The very introduction to the prophet's words points to some- thing greater than this : " Thus saith the Lord, Did I reveal myself to thy fathers house, when they loere in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh V^ The H interrogative is not used for N?n (iionne), but is emphatic, as in Jer. xxxi. 20. The question is an appeal to Eli's conscience, which he cannot deny, but is obliged to confirm. By Eli's father's house we are not to understand Ithamar and his family, but Aaron, from whom Eli CHAP. II. 27-36. 41 was descended through Ithamar. God revealed himself to the tribe-father of Eli by appointing Aaron to be the spokesman of Moses before Pharaoh (Ex. iv. 14 sqq. and 27), and still more by calling Aaron to the priesthood, for which the way was prepared by the fact that, from the very beginning, God made use of Aaron, in company with !Moses, to carry out His purpose of delivering Israel out of Egypt, and entrusted Moses and Aaron with the arrangements for the celebration of the passover (Ex. xii. 1, 43). This occurred when they, the fathers of Eli, Aaron and his sons, were still in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh, i.e. still under Pharaoh's rule. — Ver. 28. "And did I choose Mm out of all the tribes for a priest to myself ^ The interro- gative particle is not to be repeated before "i^l^^S t)ut the construction becomes affirmative with the inf. abs. instead of the perfect. " Him^' refers back to "thy father^'' in ver. 27, and signifies Aaron. The expression "for a priest" is still further defined by the clauses which follow : 'ö PJ? J^i-'i-'?, " to ascend upon mine altar" i.e. to approach my altar of burnt- offering and perform the sacrificial worship ; " to kindle incense" i.e. to perform the service in the holy place, the principal feature in wdiich was the daily kindling of the incense, which is mentioned instar omnium ; " to wear the ephod before me" i.e. to perform the service in the holy of holies, which the high priest could only enter when wearing the ephod to represent Israel before the Lord (Ex. xxviii. 12). "And have given to thy father s house all the firings of the children of Israel" (see at Lev. i. 9). These w^ords are to be understood, according to Deut. xviii. 1, as signifying that the Lord had given to the house of Aaron, i.e. to the priesthood, the sacrifices of Jehovah to eat in the place of any inheritance in the land, according to the portions appointed in the sacrificial law in Lev. vi. vii., and Num. xviii. — Ver. 29. With such distinction conferred upon the priesthood, and such careful provision made for it, the conduct of the priests under Eli was an inexcusable crime. " Why do ye tread with your feet my slain-offerings and meat- offerings, which I have commanded in the divelling-place ? " Slain-offering and meat-offering are general expressions em- bracing all the altar-sacrifices, lij^ö is an accusative (" in the dwelling"), like T)\2, in the house. " The dwelling" is the taber- nacle. This reproof applied to the priests generally, including 42 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Eli, who had not vigorously resisted these abuses. The words which follow, " and thou honourest thy sons more than me" relate to Eli himself, and any other high priest who like Eli should tolerate the abuses of the priests. " To fatten yourselves vjith the first of every sacrificial gift of Israel, of m.y peopled "^^iV? serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, and is chosen for the purpose of giving greater prominence to the idea of ''ßy (my people). ^''^'^'Ü, the first of every sacrificial gift (ininchah, as in ver. 17), which Israel offered as the nation of Jehovah, ought to have been given up to its God in the altar-fire because it was the best; whereas, according to vers. 15, 16, the sons of Eli took away the best for themselves. — ^Ver. 30. For this reason, the saying of the Lord, " Thy house {i.e. the family of Eli) and thy father^ s house (Eli's relations in the other lines, i.e. the whole priesthood) shall tvalk before me for ever" (Num. XXV. 13), should henceforth run thus : " This be far from me ; \nit them that honour me I loill honour, and they that despise me shall be despised." The first declaration of the Lord is not to be referred to Eli particularly, as it is by C. a Lapide and others, and understood as signifying that the high-priesthood was thereby transferred from the family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, and promised to Eli for his descendants for all time. This is decidedly at variance with the fact, that although " walking before the Lord" is not a general expression denoting a pious walk with God, as in Gen. xvii. 1, but refers to the service of the priests at the sanctuary as walking before the face of God, yet it cannot possibly be specially and exclusively restricted to the right of entering the most holy place, which was the prerogative of the high priest alone. These words of the Lord, therefore, applied to the whole priesthood, or the whole house of Aaron, to which the priesthood had been pro- mised, "for a perpetual statute" (Ex. xxix. 9). This promise was afterwards renewed to Phinehas especially, on account of the zeal which he displayed for the honour of Jehovah in connection with the idolatry of the people at Shittim (Num. XXV. 13). But even this renewed promise only secured to him an eternal priesthood as a covenant of peace with the Lord, and not specially the high-priesthood, although that was included as the culminating point of the priesthood. Consequently it was not abrogated by the temporary transfer of the high-priest- CHAP. II. 27-36. 43 hood from the descendants of Phinehas to the priestly line of Ithamar, because even then they still retained the priesthood. By the expression " be it far from w?," sc. to permit this to take place, God does not revoke His previous promise, but simply denounces a false trust therein as irreconcilable with His holiness. That promise would only be fulfilled so far as the priests themselves honoured the Lord in their office, whilst despisers of God, who dishonoured Him by sin and presump- tuous wickedness, would be themselves despised. This contempt would speedily come upon the house of Eli. — Ver. 31. ^^ Behold, days come^^ — a formula with which pro- phets were accustomed to announce future events (see 2 Kings XX. 17; Isa. xxxix. 6; Amos iv. 2, viii. 11, ix. 13; Jer. vii. 32, etc.), — " then ivill I cut of thine arm, and the arm of thy father s house, that there shall he no old man in thine house." To cut off the arm means to destroy the strength either of a man or of a family (see Job xxii. 9 ; Ps. xxxvii. 17). The strength of a family, however, consists in the vital energy of its mem- bers, and shows itself in the fact that they reach a good old age, and do not pine away early and die. This strength was to vanish in Eli's house ; no one would ever again preserve his life to old age. — Ver. 32. '' And thou teilt see oppression of the dwelling in all that He has shown of good to Israel." The meaning of these words, which have been explained in very different ways, appears to be the following : In all the benefits which the Lord would confer upon His people, Eli would see only distress for the dwelling of God, inasmuch as the taber- nacle would fall more and more into decay. In the person of Eli, the high priest at that time, the high priest generally is addressed as the custodian of the sanctuary; so that what is said is not to be limited to him personally, but applies to all the high priests of his house, pyo is not Eli's dwelling-place, but the dwelling-place of God, i.e. the tabernacle, as in ver. 29, and is a genitive dependent upon l^^ ^V'?) in the sense of benefit- ing a person, doing him good, is construed with the accusative of the person,, as in Deut. xxviii. 63, viii. 16, xxx. 5. The subject to the verb y^'''' is Jehovah, and is not expressly men- tioned, simply because it is so clearly implied in the words themselves. This threat began to be fulfilled even in Eli's own days. The distress or tribulation for the tabernacle began with 44 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. the capture of the ark by the Philistines (ch. iv. 11), and continued during the time that the Lord was sending help and deliverance to His people through the medium of Samuel, in their spiritual and physical oppression. The ark of the cove- nant— the heart of the sanctuary — was not restored to the tabernacle in the time of Samuel ; and the tabernacle itself was removed from Shiloh to Nob, probably in the time of war ; and when Saul had had all the priests put to death (ch. xxi. 2, xxii. 11 sqq.), it was removed to Gibeon, which necessarily caused it to fall more and more into neglect. Among the different explanations, the rendering given by Aquila (jcal eVt/SXe-v^et (? i7nßXe-ylr7]7 wo'Xsr This last clause we also find in the Vulgate, expressed as follows : Et ebalUverunt villse et agri in medio regionis illius, et nati sunt mures, et facta est confusio mortis magnse in civitate. Ewald's decision with regard to these clauses (Gesch. ii. p. 541) is, that they are not wanted at ch. v. 3, 6, but that they are all the more necessary at ch. vi. 1 ; whereas at ch. V. 3, 6, they would rather injure the sense. Thenius admits that the clause appended to ver. 3 is nothing more than a second translation of our sixth verse, which has been interpolated by a copyist of the Greek in the wrong place ; whereas that of ver. 6 contains the original though somewhat 60 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. which is used in ch. vi. 11, 17, and was probably regarded as more decorous. Ashdod is a more precise definition of the word them, viz. Ashdod, i.e. the inhabitants of Ashdod and its territory. Vers. 7-12. " When the Ashdodites saio that it loas so" they were unwilling to keep the ark of the God of Israel any longer, because the hand of Jehovah lay heavy upon them and their god Dagon ; whereupon the princes of the Philistines {''PP, as in Josh. xiii. 3, etc.) assembled together, and came to the reso- lution to " let the ark of the God of Israel turn (i.e. be taken) to Gath" (ver. 8). The princes of the Philistines probably imagined that the calamity which the Ashdodites attributed to the ark of God, either did not proceed from the ark, i.e. from the God of Israel, or if actually connected with the presence of the ark, simply arose from the fact that the city itself was hate- ful to the God of the Israelites, or that the Dagon of Ashdod was weaker than the Jehovah of Israel : they therefore resolved to let the ark be taken to Gath in order to pacify the Ash- dodites. According to our account, the city of Gath seems to have stood between Ashdod and Ekron (see at Josh, xiii. 3). — Ver. 9. But when the ark was brought to Gath, the hand of Jehovah came upon that city also with very great alarm. T "*? '"'?^'"'^ ^^ subordinated to the main sentence either adver- bially or in the accusative. Jehovah smote the people of the city, small and great, so that boils broke out upon their hinder parts. — Vers. 10-12. They therefore sent the ark of God to Ekron, i.e. Akir, the north-western city of the Philistines (see corrupt text, according to which the Hebrew text should be emended. But an impartial examination would show very clearly, that all these additions are nothing more than paraphrases founded upon the context. The last part of the addition to ver. 6 is taken verbatim from ver. 11, whilst the first part is a conjecture based upon ch. vi. 4, 5. Jerome, if indeed the addi- tion in our text of the Vulgate really originated with him, and was not transferred into his version from the Itala, did not venture to suppress the clause interpolated in the Alexandrian version. This is very evident from the words confusio mortis inagnx, which are a literal rendering of avy^cixn; öotvärov fieyoiXri ; whereas in ver. 11, Jerome has given to niQ no^no, which the LXX. rendered Qvyyjuaii SoivxTov, the much more accurate ren- dering pavor mortis. Moreover, neither the Syriac nor Targum JonatJi. has this clause ; so that long before the time of Jerome, the Hebrew text existed in the form in which the Masoretes have handed it down to us. CHAP. VI. 1-3. 61 at Josh. xiii. 3). But the Ekronites, who had been informed of what had taken place in Ashdod and Gath, cried out, when the ark came into their city, " Thejj have brought the ark of the God of Israel to me, to slay me and my people" (these words are to be regarded as spoken by the whole town) ; and they said to all the princes of the Philistines whom they had called together, " Send aioay the ark of the God of Israel, that it may return to its place, and not slay me and my people. For deadly alarm (n.l^ npino^ corfusion of death, i.e. alarm produced by many sudden deaths) ruled in the xohole city ; very heavy icas the hand of God there. The people who did not die were smitten loith boils, and the cry of the city ascended to heaven." From this description, which simply indicates briefly the particulars of the plagues that God inflicted upon Ekron, we may see very clearly that Ekron was visited even more severely than Ashdod and Gath. This was naturally the case. The longer the Philistines resisted and refused to recognise the chastening hand of the Hving God in the plagues inflicted upon them, the more severely tvould they necessarily be punished, that they might be brought at last to see that the God of Israel, whose sanctuary they still wanted to keep as a trophy of their victory over that nation, was the omnipotent God, who was able to destroy His foes. Chap, vi.-vii. 1. The Ark of God sent back. — Vers. 1—3. The ark of Jehovah was in the land (lit. the fields, as in Ruth i. 2) of the Philistines for seven months, and had brought destruction to all the towns to which it had been taken. At length the Philistines resolved to send it back to the Israelites, and therefore called their priests and diviners (see at Num. xxiii. 23) to ask them, " What shall we do with regard to the ark of God ; tell us, loith ivhat shall we send it to its place ? " " Its place " is the land of Israel, and nss does not mean " in what manner" {quomodo: Vulgate, Thenius), but with what, xohereivith (as in Micah vi. 6). There is no force in the objection brought by Thenius, that if the question had implied with what pre- sents, the priests would not have answered, " Do not send it icith- out a present-/^ for the priests did not confine themselves to this answer, in which they gave a general assent, but proceeded at once to define the present more minutely. They replied, " If they send away the ark of the God of Israel (p^rh'^T^ is to be 62 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. taken as the third person In an indefinite address, as in ch. ii. 24, and not to be construed with orix supplied), do not send it away empty (i.e. without an expiatory offering), but return Him (i.e. the God of Israel) a trespass-offering." Dt^t<, lit. guilt, then the gift presented as compensation for a fault, the trespass- offering (see at Lev. v. 14-26). The gifts appointed by the Philistines as an asham were to serve as a compensation and satisfaction to be rendered to the God of Israel for the robbery committed upon Him by the removal of the ark of the cove- nant, and were therefore called asham, although in their nature they were only expiatory offerings. For the same reason the verb y^'[}, to return or repay, is used to denote the presentation of these gifts, being the technical expression for the payment of compensation for a fault in Num. v. 7, and in Lev. v. 23 for compensation for anything belonging to another, that had been unjustly appropriated. " Are ye healed then, it loill show you vjhy His hand is not removed from you^^ so. so long as ye keep back the ark. The words IXSin tx are to be understood as conditional, : IT" T ' even without D^5, which the rules of the language allow (see Ewald, § 357, b) ; this is required by the context. For, accord- ing to ver. 9, the Philistine priests still thought it a possible thing that any misfortune which had befallen the Philistines might be only an accidental circumstance. With this view, they could not look upon a cure as certain to result from the sending back of the ark, but only as possible ; consequently they could only speak conditionally, and with this the words " we shall know " agree. Vers. 4-6. The trespass-offering was to correspond to the number of the princes of the Philistines. "iSpp is an accusative employed to determine either measure or number (see Ewald, § 204, a), lit. " the number of their princes :" the compensations were to be the same in number as the princes. " Five golden boils, and five golden mice," i.e., according to ver. 5, images resembling their boils, and the field-mice which overran the land ; the same gifts, therefore, for them all, "for one plague is to all and to your princes," i.e. the same jilague has fallen upon all the people and their princes. The change of person in the two words, ^f^?, " all of them," i.e. the whole nation of the Philistines, and D3''_J'ipp, " your pnncßs," appears very strange to us with our modes of thought and speech, but it is by no means CHAP. VI. 4-6. 63 unusual in Hebrew. The selection of this peculiar kind of expia- tory present was quite in accordance with a custom, which was not only widely spread among the heathen but was even adopted in the Christian church, viz. that after recovery from an illness, or rescue from any danger or calamity, a representation of the member healed or the danger passed through was placed as an offering in the temple of the deity, to whom the person had prayed for deliverance ; ^ and it also perfectly agrees with a custom which has prevailed in India, according to Tavernier (Ros. Ä. u. iV. Morgenland iii. p. 77), from time immemorial down to the present day, viz. that when a pilgrim takes a journey to a pagoda to be cured of a disease, he offers to the idol a present either in gold, silver, or copper, according to his ability, of the shape of the diseased or injured member, and then sings a hymn. Such a present passed as a practical acknowledg- ment that the god had inflicted the suffering or evil. If offered after recovery or deliverance, it was a public expression of thanks- giving. In the case before us, however, in which it was offered before deliverance, the presentation of the images of the things with which they had been chastised was probably a kind of fine or compensation for the fault that had been committed against the Deity, to mitigate His wrath and obtain a deliverance from the evils with which they had been smitten. This is contained in the words, "Give glory unto the God of Israel! peradventure He will lighten His (punishing) hand from off you, and from off your 1 Thus, after a shipwreck, any who escaped presanted a tablet to Isis, or Neptune, with the representation of a shipwreck upon it ; gladiators offered their weapons, and emancipated slaves their fetters. In some of the nations of antiquity even representations of the private parts, in which a cure had been obtained from the deity, were hung up in the temples in honour of the gods (see Schol. ad Aristoph. Acliarn. 243, and other proofs in "Winer's Real-wörterbuch, ii. p. 255). Theodoret says, concerning the Christians of the fourth century (Therapeutik. Disp. viii) : "Ort li 'rvy/^a,vov(7tv uvTrip ulrovaiv 0/ viarZig iTrxy/s'K'houTe;, ciycc(pcfjOov fActorvou roe, Tovrav ii'ja.&r,i^ccroc,^ T'/jv Ixrpsioiu On'Koui/rcc, 01 fiiv -/xp 6(pdct'h/auv, 0/ ös 'ttoOuv, uAMt Oi y^itpuv vpojXo7 Ss rctvr» TpoKSiiiivx ruv '7rtt.6riy.oi.ruv rvjv "hvaiv, tj; oovtridn f^.vyiy,uoe. -TToipoi ruu dprlav yiyzvny.vju'j. And at Rome they still hang up a picture of the danger, from which deliverance had been obtained after a vow, in the church of the saint invoked in the danger. 64 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. gods, and from off your land." The expression is a pregnant one for " make His heavy hand h'ght and withdraw it," i.e. take away the punishment. In the alhision to the representations of the field-mice, the words " that devastate the land " are added, because in the description given of the plagues in ch. v. the devastation of the land by mice is not expressly mentioned. The introduction of this clause after D3"''n33yj when contrasted with the omission of any such explanation after D^vSJ?, is a proof that the plague of mice had not been described before, and there- fore that the references made to these in the Septuagint at ch. V. 3, 6, and ch. vi. 1, are nothing more than explanatory glosses. It is a well-known fact that field-mice, with their enormous rate of increase and their great voracity, do extraordinary damage to the fields. In southern lands they sometimes destroy entire harvests in a very short space of time (Aristot. Animal, vi. 37 ; Plin. h. n. x. c. Q)b ; Strabo, iii. p. 165 ; vElian, etc., in Bochart, Hieroz. ii. p. 429, ed. Ros.). — Ver. 6. " Wherefore" continued the priests, " %vill ye harden your heart, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts'? (Ex. vii. 13 sqq.) Was it not the case, that lohen He (Jehovah) had let out His power upon them (3 >"i, and carries on the principal clause. — Ver. 15a contains a supplementary remark, therefore IT'^in is to be trans- lated as a pluperfect. After sacrificing the cart, with the cows^ as a burnt-offering to the Lord, the inhabitants of Bethshemesh CHAP. VI. 13-18. 67 gave a further practical expression to their joy at the return of the ark, by offering burnt-offerings and slain-offerings in praise of God. In the burnt-offerings they consecrated themselves afresh, with all their members, to the service of the Lord ; and in the slain-offerings, which culminated in the sacrificial meals, they sealed anew their living fellowship with the Lord. The offering of these sacrifices at Bethshemesh was no offence against the commandment, to sacrifice to the Lord at -the place of His sanctuary alone. The ark of the covenant was the throne of the gracious presence of God, before which the sacrifices were really offered at the tabernacle. The Lord had sanctified the ark afresh as the throne of His presence, by the miracle which He had wrought in bringing it back again. — In vers. 17 and 18 the different atoning presents, which the Phili- stines sent to Jehovah as compensation, are enumerated once more : viz. five golden boils, one for each of their five principal towns (see at Josh. xiii. 3), and " golden mice, according to the number of all the Philistian towns of the five princes, from the fortified city to the village of the inhabitants of the level land" (perazi; see at Deut. iii. 5). The priests had only proposed that five golden mice should be sent as compensation, as well as five boils (ver. 4). But the Philistines offered as many images of mice as there were towns and villages in their five states, no doubt because the plague of mice had spread over the whole land, wdiereas the plague of boils had only fallen upon the inhabitants of those towns to which tlie ark of the covenant had come. In this way the apparent discrepancy between ver. 4 and ver. 18 is very simply removed. The words which follow, viz. '1J1 n^y ifT'in "irs, " upon which they had set down the ark," show unmistakeably, when compared with vers. 14 and 15, that we are to understand by npiljn ?3S the great stone upon which the ark was placed when it was taken off the cart. The con- jectui'e of Kimchi, that this stone was called Abel (luctus), on account of the mourning which took place there (see ver. 19), is extremely unnatural. Consequently there is no other course left than to regard ^2X as an error in writing for |3X, according to the reading, or at all events the rendering, adopted by the LXX. and Targum. But ly"! (even unto) is quite unsuitable here, as no further local definition is required after the fore- going ''ly^^'^ "123 "ly"), and it is impossible to suppose that the 68 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Philistines offered a golden mouse as a trespass-offering for the great stone upon which the ark was placed. We must there- fore alter "lyi. into '^V] : " A7id the gi^eat stone is witness (for lyi in this sense, see Gen. xxxi. 52) to this day in the field of Joshua the Beihshemeshite" sc. of the fact just described. Ver. 19-ch. vii. 1. Disposal of the Ark of God. — Yer. 19. As the ark had brought evil upon the Philistines, so the inhabitants of Bethshemesh were also to be taught that they could not stand in their unholiness before the holy God : ^^ And He (God) smote among the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked at the ark of Jehovah, and smote among the people seventy men, fifty thousand menP In this statement of numbers we are not only struck by the fact that the 70 stands before the 50,000, which is very unusual, but even more by the omission of the copula 1 before the second number, which is altogether unparalleled. When, in addition to this, we notice that 50,000 men could not possibly live either in or round Bethshemesh, and that we cannot conceive of any extraordinary gathering having taken place out of the whole land, or even from the im- mediate neighbourhood ; and also that the words ^^'^ ^^. ^""^Pr! are wanting in several Hebrew MSS., and that Josephus, in his account of the occurrence, only speaks of seventy as having been killed {Ant. vi. 1, 4) ; we cannot come to any other conclusion than that the number 50,000 is neither correct nor genuine, but a gloss which has crept into the text through some over- sight, though it is of great antiquity, since the numbers stood in the text employed by the Septuagint and Chaldee trans- lators, who attempted to explain them in two different ways, but both extremely forced. Apart from this number, however, the verse does not contain anything either in form or substance that could furnish occasion for well-founded objections to its in- tegrity. The repetition of 'H!! simply resumes the thought that had been broken off by the parenthetical clause "''' |i"iX3 ^X"i ""a ; and 0^3 is only a general expression for '^ '^ "'i^'^^r'. The stroke which fell upon the people of Bethshemesh is sufficiently accounted for in the words, " because they had looked^'' etc. There is no necessity to understand these words, however, as many Rabbins do, as signifying " they looked into the ark," i.e. opened it and looked in ; for if this had been the meaning, the CHAP. VI. 19-VII. 1. 69 opening would certainly not have been passed over without notice, nsi") with 2 means to look upo7i or at a thing with lust or mali- cious pleasure ; and here it no doubt signifies a foolish staring, which was incompatible with the holiness of the ark of God, and was punished with death, according to the warning ex- pressed in Num. iv. 20. This severe judgment so alarmed the people of Bethshemesh, that they exclaimed, " Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God!" Consequently the Beth- shemeshites discerned correctly enough that the cause of the fatal stroke, which had fallen upon them, was the unholiness of their own nature, and not any special crime which had been committed by the persons slain. They felt that they were none of them any better than those who had fallen, and that sinners could not approach the holy God. Inspired with this feeling, they added, " and to lohom shall He go away from us ?" The subject to 7bv\ is not the ark, but Jehovah who had chosen the ark as the dwelling-place of His name. In order to avert still further judgments, they sought to remove the ark from their town. They therefore sent messengers to Kirjath-jearim to announce to the inhabitants the fact that the ark had been sent back by the Philistines, and to entreat them to fetch it away. Ch. vii. 1. The inhabitants of Kirjath-jearim complied with this request, and brought the ark into the house of Abinadab upon the height, and sanctified Abinadab's son Eleazar to be the keeper of the ark. Kirjath-jearim, the present Kuryet el Enab (see at Josh. ix. 17), was neither a priestly nor a Levitical city. The reason why the ark was taken there, is to be sought for, therefore, in the situation of the town, i.e. in the fact that Kirjath-jearim was the nearest large town on the road from Bethshemesh to Shiloh. "We have no definite information, however, as to the reason why it was not taken on to Shiloh, to be placed in the tabernacle, but was allowed to remain in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, where a keeper was ex- pressly appointed to take charge of it ; so that vfe can only confine ourselves to conjectures. Ewald's opinion {Gesch. ii, 540), that the Philistines had conquered Shiloh after the victory described in ch. iv., and had destroyed the ancient sanctuary there, i.e. the tabernacle, is at variance with the accounts given in ch. xxi. 6, 1 Kings iii. 4, 2 Chron. i. 3, respecting the continu- ance of worship in the tabernacle at Nob and Gibeon. There 70 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. is much more to be said in support of the conjecture, that the carrying away of the ark by the PhiUstines was regarded as a judgment upon the sanctuary, which had been desecrated by the reckless conduct of the sons of Eh, and consequently, that even when the ark itself was recovered, they would not take it back without an express declaration of the will of God, but were satisfied, as a temporary arrangement, to leave the ark in Kir- jath-jearim, which was farther removed from the cities of the Philistines. And there it remained, because no declaration of the divine will followed respecting its removal into the taber- nacle, and the tabernacle itself had to be removed from Shiloli to Nob, and eventually to Gibeon, until David had effected the conquest of the citadel of Zion, and chosen Jerusalem as his capital, when it was removed from Kirjath-iearim to Jeru- salem (2 Sam. vi.). It is not stated that Abinadab was a Levite ; but this is very probable, because otherwise they would hardly have consecrated his son to be the keeper of the ark, but would have chosen a Levite for the office. CONVERSION OF ISRAEL TO THE LORD BY SAMUEL. VICTORY OVER THE PHILISTINES. SAMUEL AS JUDGE OF ISRAEL. — CHAP. VII. 2-17. Vers. 2-4. Purification of Israel from idolatry. — Twenty years passed away from that time forward, while the ark re- mained at Kirjath-jearim, and all Israel mourned after Jehovah. Then Samuel said to them, " If ye turn to the Lord with all your heart, put away the strange gods from the midst of you, and the Astartes, and direct your heart firmly upon the Lord, and serve Him only, that He may save you out of the hand of the Phili- stines.^^ And the Israelites listened to this appeal. The single clauses of vers. 2 and 3 are connected together by vav consecy and are not to be separated from one another. There is no gap between these verses; but they contain the same closely and logically connected thought,^ which may be arranged in ' There is no force at all in the proofs which Thenius has adduced of a gap between vers. 2 and 3. It by no means follows, that because the Philistines had brought back the ark, their rule over the Israelites had ceased, so as to make the words " he will deliver you," etc., incomprehen- sible. Moreover, the appearance of Samuel as judge does not presuppose CHAP. VII. 2-1. 71 one jDeriod iu the following manner : " And It came to pass, \Yhen the days multiplied from the time that the ark remained at Kirjath-jearim, and grew to twenty years, and the whole house of Israel mourned after Jehovah, that Samuel said," etc. The verbs 13"!'1, l"''!'^, and ^^^% are merely continuations of the infinitive ^y^', and the main sentence is resumed in the words 7N^nci' "lON'l. The contents of the verses require that the clauses should be combined in this manner. The statement that twenty years had passed can only be understood on the suppo- sition that some kind of turning-point ensued at the close of that time. The complaining of the people after Jehovah was no such turning-point, but became one simply from the fact that this complaining was followed by some result. This result is described in ver. 3. It consisted in the fact that Samuel exhorted the people to put away the strange gods (ver. 3) ; and that when the people listened to his exhortation (ver. 4), he helped them to gain a victory over the Philistines (vers. 5 sqq.). ins^, from i^\^^, to lament or complain (Micah ii. 4; Ezek. xxxii. 18). " The phrase, to lament after God, is taken from liuman affairs, when one person follows another with earnest solicitations and complaints, until he at length assents. We have an example of this in the Syrophenician woman in Matt. XV." (Seb. Schmidt). The meaning "to assemble together," which is the one adopted by Gesenius, is forced upon the word from the Chaldee ''H^ns, and it cannot be shown that the word was ever used in this sense in Hebrew. Samuel's appeal in ver. 3 recalls to mind Josh. xxiv. 14, and Gen. XXXV. 2; but the words, ^^ If ye do return unto the Lord with all your hearts,'" assume that the turning of the people to the Lord their God had already inwardly commenced, and indeed, that his assumption of this office must necessarily have been mentioned before. As a general rule, there was no such formal assumption of the office, and this would be least of all the case with Samuel, who had been recognised as an accredited prophet of Jehovah (ch. iii. 19 sqq.). And lastly, the reference to idols, and to their being put away in consequence of Samuel's appeal, is intelligible enough, without any express account of theii falling into idolatry, if we bear in mind, on the one hand, the constant inchnation of the people to serve other gods, and if we observe, on the other hand, that Samuel called upon the people to turn to the Lord with all their heart and serve Him alone, which not only does not preclude, but actually implies, the outward continuance of the worship of Jehovah. 72 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. as the participle Q''2C^ expresses duration, had commenced as a permanent thing, and simply demand that the inward turning of the heart to God should be manifested outwardly as well, by the putting away of all their idols, and should thus be carried" out to completion. The " strange gods " (see Gen. XXXV. 2) are described in ver. 4 as " Baalim^ On Baalim and Ashtaroth, see at Judg. ii. 11, 13. ^2 T?!?, to direct the heart firmly : see Ps. Ixxviii. 8 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 19. Vers. 5-14. Victory obtained over the Philistines through SamueVs prayer. — Vers. 5, 6. When Israel had turned to the Liord with all its heart, and had put away all its idols, Samuel gathered together all the people at Mizpeh, to prepare them for fighting against the Philistines by a solemn day for peni- tence and prayer. For it is very evident that the object of calling all the people to Mizpeh was that the religious act performed there might serve as a consecratiorL.f.Qii..battle, not only from the circumstance that, according to ver. 7, when the Philistines heard of the meeting, they drew near to make war upon Israel, but also from the contents of ver. 5 : " Samuel said (sc. to the heads or representatives of the nation), Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I zoill pray for you tinto the Lord." His intention could not possibly have been any other than to put the people into the right relation to their God, and thus to prepare the way for their deliverance out of the bondage of the Philistines. Samuel appointed Mizpeh, i.e. Nehi Samioil, on the western boundary of the tribe of Benjamin (see at Josh, xviii. 26), as the place of meeting, partly no doubt on historical grounds, viz. because it was there that the tribes had formerly held their consultations respecting the wickedness of the inhabit- ants of Gibeah, and had resolved to make war upon Benjamin (Judg. XX. 1 sqq.), but still more, no doubt, because Mizpeh, on the western border of the mountains, was the most suitable place for commencing the conflict with the Philistnies. — Ver. 6. When they had assembled together here, " tliey drew water and poured it out before Jehovah, and fasted on that day, and said there. We have sinned against the Lord." Drawing water and pouring it out before Jehovah was a symbolical act, which has been thus correctly explained by the Chaldee, on the whole : " They poured out their heart like water in penitence before the Lord." This is evident from the figurative expres- CHAP. VII. 5-14. 73 sions, "poured out like water," in Ps. xxii. 15, and "pour out thy heart like water," in Lam. ii. 19, which are used to denote inward dissolution through pain, misery, and distress (see 2 Sam. xiv. 14). Hence the pouring out of water before God was a symbolical representation of the temporal and spiritual distress in which they were at the time, — a practical confession before God, " Behold, we are before Thee like water that has been poured out ;" and as it was their own sin and rebellion against God that had brought this distress upon them, it was at the same time a confession of their misery, and an act of the deepest humiliation before the Lord. They gave a still further practical expression to this humiliation by fasting (D^v), as a sig^n of their inward distress of mind on account of their sin, and an oral confession of their sin against the Lord. By the word DC', which is added to IIOX'I, "they said there" i.e. at Mizpeh, the oral confession of their sin is formally separated from the two symbolical acts of humiliation before God, thouo;h by this very separation it is practically placed on a par with them. What they did symbolically by the pouring out of water and fasting, they explained and confirmed by their verbal con- fession. ^ll^' is never an adverb of time signifying " theii ;^' neither in Ps. xiv. 5, cxxxii. 17, nor Judg. v. 11. '^ And thus Samuel judged the children of Israel at Mizpeh." tD*^t^'*1 does not mean " he became judge " (Mich, and others), any more than " he punished every one according to his iniquity " (Thenius, after David Kimchi). Judging the people neither consisted in a censure pronounced by Samuel afterwards, nor in absolution granted to the penitent after they had made a confession of their sin, but in the fact that Samuel summoned the nation to !Mizpeli to humble itself before Jehovah, and there secured for it, through his intercession, the forgiveness of its sin, and a renewal of the favour of its God, and thus restored the proper relation between Israel and its God, so that the Lord could proceed to vindicate His people's rights against their foes. When the Philistines heard of the gathering of the Israel- ites at Mizpeh (vers. 7, 8), their princes went up against Israel to make war upon it ; and the Israelites, in their fear of the Philistines, entreated Samuel, " Do not cease to cry for us to the Lord our God, that He may save us out of the hand of the Phili- .stines." — Yer. 9. ^^ And Samuel took a milk-lamh (a lamb that 74 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. was still sucking, probably, according to Lev. xxii. 27, a lamb seven days old), and offered it ivJwle as a hurnt-offering to the Lordr ?v3 is used adverbially, according to its original mean- ing as an adverb, " wlioleV The Chaldee has not given the word at all, probably because the translators regarded it as pleonastic, since every burnt-offering was consumed upon the altar whole, and consequently the word ^vS was sometimes used in a substantive sense, as synonymous with HPiy (Deut. xxxiii. 10; Ps. li. 21). But in the passage before us, ? v3 is not synonymous with '"i?iy, but simply affirms that the lamb was offered upon the altar without being cut up or divided. Samuel selected a young lamb for the burnt-offering, not "as being the purest and most innocent kind of sacrificial animal," — for it cannot possibly be shown that very young animals were re- garded as purer than those that were full-grown, — but as being the most suitable to represent the nation that had wakened up to new life through its conversion to the Lord, and was, as it were, new-born. For the burnt-offering represented the man, who consecrated therein his life and labour to the Lord. The sacrifice was the substratum for prayer. AVhen Samuel offered it, he cried to the Lord for the children of Israel ; and the Lord ^^ answered" i.e. granted, his prayer. — Ver. 10. When the Philistines advanced during the offering of the sacrifice to fight against Israel, " Jeliovah thundered with a great noise,'^ i.e. with loud peals, against the Philistines, and threw them into confu- sion, so that they were smitten before Israel. The thunder, which alarmed the Philistines and threw them into confusion (DSiT'j as in Josh. x. 10), was the answer of God to Samuel's crying to the Lord. — Ver. 11. As soon as they took to flight, the Israelites advanced from Mizpeh, and pursued and smote them to below Beth-car. The situation of this town or locality, which is only mentioned here, has not yet been discovered. Josephus (Ant. vi. 2, 2) has fie')(^pc Koppalwv. — Yer. 12. As a memorial of this victory, Samuel placed a stone between Mizpeh and Shen, to which he gave the name of Ehen-ha-ezer^ i.e. stone of help, as a standing memorial that the Lord had thus far J^ helped His people. The situation of Shen is also not known. ™ The name Shen (i.e. tooth) seems to indicate a projecting point of rock (see ch. xiv. 4), but may also signify a place situated upon such a point. — Ver. 13. Through this victory which was CHAP. VII. 5-14. 75 obtained bj the miraculous help of God, the Philistines were so humbled, that they no more invaded the territory of Israel, i.e. with lasting success, as they had done before. This limi- tation of the words " thej/ came no more " {lit. " they did not add again to come into the border of Israel"), is implied in the context ; for the words which immediately follow, " and the hand of Jehovah was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel" show that they made attempts to recover their lost supremacy, but that so long as Samuel lived they were unable to effect anything against Israel. This is also manifest from the successful battles fought by Saul (ch. xiii. and xiv.), when the Philistines had made fresh attempts to subjugate Israel during his reign. The defeats inflicted upon them by Saul also belong to the days of Samuel, who died but a very few years before Saul himself. Because of these battles which Saul fought with the Philistines, Lyra and Brentius understand the expression " all the days of Samuel " as referring not to the lifetime of Samuel, but simply to the duration of his official life as judge, viz. till the commencement of Saul's reign. But this is at variance with ver. 15, where Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life. Seb. Schmidt has given, on the whole, the correct explanation of ver. 13 : " They came no more so as to obtain a victory and subdue the Israelites as before ; yet they did return, so that the hand of the Lord was against them, i.e. so that they were repulsed with great slaughter, although they were not actually expelled, or the Israelites delivered from tribute and the presence of military garrisons, and that all the days that the judicial life of Samuel lasted, in fact all his life, since they were also smitten by Saul." — Ver. 14. In consequence of the defeat at Ebenezer, the Phili- stines were obliged to restore to the Israelites the cities which they had taken from them, ^^ from Ekron to Gathl^ This defi- nition of the limits is probably to be understood as exclusive, i.e. as signifying that the Israelites received back their cities up to the very borders of the Philistines, measuring these borders from Ekron to Gath, and not that the Israelites received Ekron and Gath also. For although these chief cities of the Phili- stines had been allotted to the tribes of Judah and Dan in the time of Joshua (Josh. xiii. 3, 4, xv. 45, 46), yet, notwith- standing the fact that Judah and Simeon conquered Ekron, 76 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. together with Gaza and Askelon, after the death of Joshua (Judg. i. 18), the Israelites did not obtain any permanent pos- session. ^^ And their territory" (coasts), i.e. the territory of the towns that were given back to Israel, not that of Ekron and Gath, " did Israel deliver out of the hands of the Philistines. And there was peace between Israel and the Amorites ;" i.e. the Canaanitish tribes also kept peace with Israel after this victory of the Israelites over the Philistines, and during the time of Samuel. The Amorites are mentioned, as in Josh. x. 6, as being the most powerful of the Canaanitish tribes, who had forced the Danites out of the plain into the mountains (Judg. i. 34, 35). Vers. 15-17. SamueVs judicial labours. — With the calling of the people to Mizpeh, and the victory at Ebenezer that had been obtained through his prayer, Samuel had assumed the government of the whole nation ; so that his office as judge dates from this period, although he had laboured as prophet among the people from the death of Eli, and had thereby pre- pared the way for the conversion of Israel to the Lord. As his prophetic labours were described in general terms in ch. iii. 19-21, so are his labours as Judge in the verses before us : viz. in ver. 15 their duration, — " all the days of his life" as his activity during Saul's reign and the anointing of David (ch. xv. xvi.) sufficiently prove; and then in vers. 16, 17 their general character, — " he went round from year to year" (230"! serves as a more precise definition of ^^ni, he went and travelled round) to Bethel, i.e. Beitin (see at Josh. vii. 2), Gilgal, and Mizpeh (see at ver. 5), and judged Israel at all these places. Which Gilgal is meant, whether the one situated in the valley of the Jordan (Josh. iv. 19), or the Jiljilia on the higher ground to the south- west of Shiloh (see at Josh. viii. 35), cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The latter is favoured partly by thf order in which the three places visited by Samuel on his cir cuits occur, since according to this he probably went first of all from Eamah to Bethel, which was to the north-east, then farther north or north-west to Jiljilia, and then turning back went towards the south-east to Mizpeh, and returning thence to Ramah performed a complete circuit ; whereas, if the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan had been the place referred to, we should expect him to go there first of all from Ramah, and CHAP. VIII.-XV. 77 tlien towards the north-east to Bethel, and from that to the south-west to Mizpeh ; and partly also by the circumstance that, according to 2 Kings ii. 1 and iv. 38, there was a school of the prophets at Jiljilia in the time of Elijah and Elisha, the founding of which probably dated as far back as the days of Samuel. If this conjecture were really a w^ell-founded one, it would furnish a strong proof that it was in this place, and not in the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan, that Samuel judged the people. But as this conjecture cannot be raised into a cer- tainty, the evidence in favour of Jiljilia is not so conclusive as I myself formerly supposed (see also the remarks on ch. ix. 14). nioip?i)n"73 ni< is grammatically considered an accusative, and is in apposition to PX'ib'^TiX, lit. Israel, viz. all the places named, i.e. Israel which inhabited all these places, and was to be found there. ^^ And Ids o^eturn was to jRarnah ;" i.e. after finishino; the annual circuit he returned to Kamah, where he had his house. There he judged Israel, and also built an altar to conduct the religious affairs of the nation. Up to the death of Eli, Samuel lived and laboured at Shiloh (ch. iii. 21). But when the ark was carried away by the Philistines, and consequently the tabernacle at Shiloh lost what was most essential to it as a sanctuary, and ceased at once to be the scene of the gracious presence of God, Samuel went to his native town Eamah, and there built an altar as the place of sacrifice for Jehovah, who had manifested himself to him. The buildins; of the altar at Ramah would naturally be suggested to the prophet by these extraordinary circumstances, even if it had not been expressly commanded by Jehovah. II. THE MONAECHY OF SAUL FROM HIS ELECTION TILL HIS ULTIMATE REJECTION. Chap, viii.-xv. The earthly monarchy in Israel was established in the time of Samuel, and through his mediation. At the pressing desire of the people, Samuel installed the Benjaminite Saul as king, according to the command of God. The reign of Saul may 78 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. be divided into two essentially different periods : viz. (1) the establishment and vigorous development of his regal supremacy (ch. viii.-xv.) ; (2) the decline and gradual overthrow of his monai'chy (ch. xvi.-xxxi.). The establishment of the monarchy is introduced by the negotiations of the elders of Israel with Samuel concerning the appointment of a king (ch. viii.). This is followed by (1) the account of the anointing of Saul as king (ch. ix. 1-x. 16), of his election by lot, and of his victory over the Ammonites and the confirmation of his monarchy at Gilgal (ch. X. 17-xi. 15), together with Samuel's final address to the nation (ch. xii.) ; (2) the history of Saul's reign, of which only his earliest victories over the Philistines are given at all elabo- rately (ch. xiii. 1-xiv. 46), his other wars and family history being disposed of very summarily (ch. xiv. 47-52) ; (3) the account of his disobedience to the command of God in the war against the Amalekites, and the rejection on the part of God Math which Samuel threatened him in consequence (ch. xv.). The brevity with which the history of his actual reign is treated, in contrast with the elaborate account of his election and con- firmation as king, may be accounted for from the significance and importance of Saul's monarchy in relation to the kingdom of God in Israel. The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since the source of all the evils and mis- fortunes from which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obsti- nacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart. Samuel CHAP. VIII.-XV. 79 pointed this out to the elders of Israel, when they laid their peti- tion before him that he would choose them a king. But Jehovah fulfilled their desires. He directed Samuel to appoint them a king, who possessed all the qualifications that were necessary to secure for the nation what it looked for from a king, and who therefore might have established tlie monarchy in Israel as foreseen and foretold by Jehovah, if he had not presumed upon his own power, but had submitted humbly to the will of God as made known to him by the prophet. Saul, who was chosen from Benjamin, the smallest but yet the most warlike of all the tribes, a man in the full vigour of youth, and surpassing all the rest of the people in beauty of form as well as bodily strength, not only possessed "warlike bravery and talent, un- broken courage that could overcome opposition of every kind, a stedfast desire for the well-being of the nation in the face of its many and mighty foes, and zeal and pertinacity in the exe- cution of his plans" (Ewald), but also a pious heart, and an earnest zeal for the maintenance of the provisions of the law, and the promotion of the religious life of the nation. He would not commence the conflict with the Philistines until sacrifice had been offered (ch. xiii. 9 sqq.) ; in the midst of the hot pur- suit of the foe he opposed the sin committed by the people in eating flesh with the blood (ch. xiv. 32, 33) ; he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land (ch.xxviii. 3, 9); and in general he appears to have kept a strict watch over the ob- servance of the Mosaic law in his kingdom. But the conscious- ness of his own power, coupled with the energy of his character, led him astray into an incautious disregard of the commands of God ; his zeal in the prosecution of his plans hurried him on to reckless and violent measures ; and success in his under- takings heightened his ambition into a haughty rebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel. These errors come out very conspicuously in the three great events of his reign which are the most circumstantially described. When Saul was preparing for war against the Philistines, and Samuel did not appear at once on the day appointed, he presumptuously disregarded the prohibition of the prophet, and offered the sacrifice himself without waiting for Samuel to arrive (ch. xiii. 7 sqq.). In the engagement with the Philistines, he attempted to force on the annihilation of the foe by pronouncing the ban upon any one 80 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. in his army who should eat bread before the evening, or till he had avenged himself upon his foes. Consequently, he not only diminished the strength of the people, so that the overthrow of the enemy was not great, but he also prepared humiliation for himself, inasmuch as he was not able to carry out his vow (ch. xiv. 24 sqq.). But he sinned still more grievously in the war with the Amalekites, when he violated the express command of the Tjord by only executing the ban upon that nation as far as he himself thought well, and thus by such utterly unpardon- able conduct altogether renounced the obedience which he owed to the Lord his God (ch. xv.). All these acts of transgression manifest an attempt to secure the unconditional gratification of his own self-will, and a growing disregard of the government of Jehovah in Israel; and the consequence of the whole was simply this, that Saul not only failed to accomplish that deliverance of the nation out of the power of its foes which the Israelites had anticipated from their king, and was unable to inflict any last- ing humiliation upon the Philistines, but that he undermined the stability of his monarcliy, and brought about his own rejection on the part of God. From all this we may see very clearly, that the reason why the occurrences connected with the election of Saul as king are fully described on the one hand, and on the other only such incidents connected with his enterprises after he began to reign as served to bring out the faults and crimes of his monarchy, was, that Israel might learn from this, that royalty itself could never secure the salvation it expected, unless the occupant of the throne submitted altogether to the will of the Lord. Of the other acts of Saul, the wars with the different nations round about are only briefly mentioned, but with this remark, that he displayed his strength and gained the victory in whatever direction he turned (ch. xiv. 47), simply because this statement was sufficient to bring out the brighter side of his reign, inas- much as this clearly showed that it might have been a source of blessing to the people of God, if the king had only studied how to govern his people in the power and according to the will of Jehovah. If we examine the history of Saul's reign from thib point of view, all the different points connected with it exhibit the greatest harmony. Modern critics, however, have discovered irreconcilable contradictions in the history, simply because, in- CHAP. VIII. 1-5. 81 stead of studying it for the purpose of fathoming the plan and purpose which lie at the foundation, they have entered upon the inquiry with a twofold assumption : viz. (1) that the govern- ment of Jehovah over Israel Avas only a subjective idea of the Israelitish nation, without any objective reality ; and (2) that the human monarchy was irreconcilably opposed to the government of God. Governed by these axioms, which are derived not from the Scriptures, but from the philosophical views of modern times, the critics have found it impossible to explain the diffe- I'ent accounts in any other way than by the purely external hypothesis, that the history contained in this book has been compiled from two different sources, in one of which the estab- lishment of the earthly monarchy veas treated as a violation of the supremacy of God, whilst the other took a more favour- able view. From the first source, ch. viii., x. 17-27, xi., xii., and XV. are said to have been derived; and ch. ix.-x. 17, xiii., and xiv. from the second. ISRAEL S PRAYER FOR A KING. — CHAP. VIII. As Samuel had appointed his sons as judges in his old age, and they had perverted justice, the elders of Israel entreated him to appoint them a king after the manner of all the nations (vers. 1-5). This desire not only displeased Samuel, but Jeho- vah also saw in it a rejection of His government ; nevertheless He commanded the prophet to fulfil the desire of the people, but at the same time to set before them as a w'arning the prero- gatives of a king (vers. 6-9). This answ'er from God, Samuel made known to the people, describing to them the prerogatives which the king would assume to himself above the rest of the people (vers. 10-18). As the people, however, persisted in their wish, Samuel promised them, according to the direction of God, that their wishes should be gratified (vers. 19-22). Vers. 1-5. The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel's sons as judges is his own advanced age. The infer- ence which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge here- ditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that F 82 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan (Judg. xx. 1, etc. ; see at Gen. xxi. 31). The sons are also mentioned again in 1 Chron. vi. 13, though the name of the elder has either been dropped out of the Masoretic text or has become corrupt. — Yer. 3. The sons, however, did not walk in the ways of their father, but set their hearts upon gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, in opposition to the command of God (see Ex. xxiii. 6, 8 ; Deut. xvi. 19). — Vers. 4, 5. These circumstances (viz. Samuel's age and the degeneracy of his sons) furnished the elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply to Samuel with this request : " Appoint us a king to judge us, as all the nations " (the heathen), sc. have kings. This request resembles so completely the law of the king in Deut. xvii. 14 (observe, for example, the expres- sion D)i2n"733), that the distinct allusion to it is unmistakeable. The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law is met with for the first time in the writings of the period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah had foretold through His servant Moses, as a thing that would take place in the future and for which He had even made provision. Vers. 6-9. Nevertheless " the thing displeased Samuel lohen they said" etc. This serves to explain "'^'in, and precludes the supposition that Samuel's displeasure had reference to what they had said concerning his own age and the conduct of his sons. At the same time, the reason why the petition for a king displeased the prophet, was not that he regarded the earthly monarchy as irreconcilable with the sovereignty of God, or even as untimely ; for in both these cases he would not have entered into the question at all, but would simply have refused the request as ungodly or unseasonable. But " Samuel prayed to the Lord" i.e. he laid the matter before the Lord in prayer, and the Lord said (ver. 7) : ^^ Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee." This clearly implies, that not only in Samuel's opinion, but also according to the counsel of God, the time had really come for the establishment of the earthly sovereignty in Israel. In this respect the request of the elders for a king to reign over them was perfectly justifiable ; and there is no reason to say, with Calvin, "they ought to have had regard to the times and conditions prescribed by God, and it would no doubt have come to pass that the regal power would CHAP. VIII. 6-9. 83 have grown up in the nation. Although, therefore, it had not yet been estabhshed, they ought to have waited patiently for the time appointed by God, and not to have given way to their own reasons and counsels apart from the will of God." For God had not only appointed no particular time for the establishment of the monarchy ; but in the introduction to the la^v for the king, " When thou shalt say, I will set a king over me," Pie had ceded the right to the representatives of the nation to deliberate upon the matter. Nor did they err in this respect, that while Samuel was still living, it was not the proper time to make use of the permission that they had received ; for they assigned as the reason for their application, that Samuel had grown old : consequently they did not petition for a king instead of the prophet who had been appointed and so gloriously accredited by God, but simply that Samuel himself would give them a Idng in consideration of his own age, in order that when he should become feeble or die, they might have a judge and leader of the nation. Nevertheless the Lord de- clared, " They have not rejected thee, hut they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. Äs they have always done from the day that I brought them up out of Egypt unto this day, that they have for sahen me and served other gods, so do they also unto thee^ This verdict on the part of God refers not so much to the desire expressed, as to the feelings from which it had sprung. Exter- nally regarded, the elders of Israel had a perfect right to pre- sent the request; the wrong was in their hearts.^ They not only declared to the prophet their confidence in his administra- tion of his office, but they implicitly declared him incapable of any furtlier superintendence of their civil and political affairs. This mistrust was founded upon mistrust in the Lord and His ^ Calvin has correctly pointed out how much would have been warrant- able under the circumstances : "They might, indeed, have reminded Samuel of his old age, which rendered him less able to attend to the duties of his oflBce, and also of the avarice of his sons and the corruptness of the judges; or they might have complained that his sons did not walk in his footsteps, and have asked that God would choose suitable men to govern them, and thus have left the whole thing to His will. And if they had done this, there can be no doubt that they would have received a gracious and suitable answer. But they did not think of calling upon God ; they demanded that a king should be given them, and brought forward the customs and insti- tutions of other nations." 84 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. guidance,. In the person of Samuel they rejected the Lord and His rule. They wanted a king, because they imagined that Jehovah their God-king was not able to secure their constant prosperity. Instead of seeking for the cause of the misfortunes which had hitherto befallen them in their own sin and want of fidelity towards Jehovah, they searched for it in the faulty con- stitution of the nation itself. In such a state of mind as this, their desire for a king was a contempt and rejection of the kingly government of Jehovah, and was nothing more than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods. (See ch. x. 18, 19, and eh. xii. 7 sqq., where Samuel points out to the people still more fully the wrong that tliey have committed.) — Ver. 9. In order to show them wherein they were wrong, Samuel was in- structed to bear witness against them, by proclaiming the right of the kino; who would rule over them. Dna T'^n lyn neither means " warn them earnestly " (De Wette), nor " explain and solemnly expound to them" (Thenius). 3 T'l/n means to hear loitness, or give testimony against a person, i.e. to point out to him his wrong. The following words, '1^1 ^']^'^\ are to be under- stood as explanatory, in the sense of " hy proclaiming to tliemr *' The manner in%isli'pa£) of the king" is the right ov prerogative which the king would claim, namely, such a king as was possessed by all the other nations, and such an one as Israel desired in the place of its own God-king, i.e. a king who would rule over his people with arbitrary and absolute power. Vers. 10-18. In accordance with the instructions of God, Samuel told the people all the words of Jehovah, i.e. all that God had said to him, as related in vers. 7-9, and then pro- claimed to them the right of the king. — Ver. 11. "/Zg will take your sons, and set them for himself upon his chariots, and upon his saddle-horses, and they loill run before his chariot;^ i.e. he will make the sons of the people his retainers at court, his charioteers, riders, and runners. The singular suffix attached to ina3"iD3 is not to be altered, as Thenius suggests, into the plural form, according to the LXX., Chald., and Syr., since the word refers, not to war-chariots, but to the king's state-carriage ; and Cha does not mean a rider, but a saddle-horse, as in 2 Sam. i. 6, 1 Kings V. 6, etc. — Ver. 12. " And to make himself chiefs over thousands and over fifties ;" — the greatest and smallest military officers are mentioned, instead of all the soldiers and officers CHAP. VIII. 19-22. 85 (comp. Num. xxxi. 14, 2 Kings i. 9 sqq., with Ex. xviii. 21, 25). D^bvl is also dependent upon Hi^'; (ver. 11), — ^^ and to plough his field ip'^y}, lit. the ploughed), and reap his harvest, and make his instruments of tear and instruments of his chariots." — Ver. 13. " Your daughters he loill take as preparers of ointments, cooks, and bake.j's," sc. for his court. — Vers. 14 sqq. All their possessions he would also take to himself : the good (i.e. the best) fields, vineyards, and olive-gardens, he would take away, and give to his servants ; he would tithe the sowings and vineyards (i.e. the produce which they yielded), and give them to his courtiers and servants. 0^19, lit. the eunuch ; here it is used in a wider sense for the ror/al chamberlains. Even their slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and their beasts of draught and burden he would take and use for his own work, and raise the tithe of the flock. The word D?''"?.^^?, between the slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and the asses, is very striking and altogether un- suitable ; and in all probability it is only an ancient copyist's error for D3''"?.i?3, your oxen, as we may see from the LXX. rendering, ra ßovKoXia. The servants and maids, oxen and asses, answer in that case to one another ; whilst the young men are included among the sons in vers. 11, 12. In this way the king would make all the people into his servants or slaves. This is the meaning of the second clause of ver. 17 ; for the whole are evidently summed up in conclusion in the expression, " and ye shall be his servants." — Ver. 18. Israel would then cry out to God because of its king, but the Lord would not hear it then. This description, ■which contains a fearful picture of the tyranny of the king, is drawn from the despotic conduct of the heathen kings, and does not presuppose, as many have maintained, the times of the later kings, which were so full of painful experiences. Vers. 19-22. With such a description of the " right of the king" as this, Samuel had pointed out to the elders the dangers connected with a monarchy in so alarming a manner, that they ought to have been brought to reflection, and to have desisted from their demand. " But the people refused to hearken to the voice of SamueV They repeated their demand, " We ivill have a king over us, that we also may he like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and conduct our battles'' — Vers. 21, 22. These words of the people were laid by Samuel before the Lord, and the Lord commanded him to give .^6 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. the people a king. With this answer Samuel sent tlie men of Israel, i.e. the elders, away. This is implied in the words, " Go ye every man unto his city" since we may easily supply from the context, " till I shall call you again, to appoint you the king you desire." ANOINTING OF SAUL AS KING. — CHAP. IX.-X. 16. When the Lord had instructed Samuel to appoint a king over the nation, in accordance with its own desire, He very speedily proceeded to show him the man whom He had chosen. Saul the Benjaminite came to Samuel, to consult him as a seer about his father's she-asses, which had been lost, and for which he had been seeking in all directions in vain (ch. ix. 1-14). And the Lord had already revealed to the prophet the day before, that He would send him the man who had been set apart by Him as the king of Israel ; and when Samuel met with Saul, He pointed him out as the man to whom He had referred (vers. 15-17). Accordingly, Samuel invited Saul to be his guest at a sacrificial meal, which he was about to celebrate (vers. 18-24). After the meal he made known to him the purpose of God, anointed him as king (vers. 25-27, ch. x. 1), and sent him away, with an announcement of three signs, which would serve to confirm his election on the part of God (ch. x. 2-16). This occurrence is related very circumstantially, to bring out dis- tinctly the miraculous interposition of God, and to show that Saul did not aspire to the throne; and also that Samuel did not appoint of his own accord the man whom he was afterwards obliged to reject, but that Saul was elected by God to be king over His people, without any interference on the part of either Samuel or himself.^ Ch. ix. 1-10. Saul searches for his fathers asses. — Vers. 1, 2. The elaborate genealogy of the Benjaminite Kish, and the minute description of the figure of his son Saul, are in- * There is no tenable ground for the assumption of Thenius and others, that this account was derived from a different source from ch. viii., x. 17-27, and xi. sqq. ; for the assertion that ch. x. 17-27 connects itself in the most natural way with ch. viii. is neither well-founded nor correct. , In the first place, it was certainly more natural that Samuel, who was to place a king over the nation according to the appointment of God, shoidd be CHAP. IX. 1-10. 87 tended to Indicate at tlie very outset the importance to which Saul attained in relation to the people of Israel. Kish was the son of Ahiel : this is in harmony with ch. xiv. 51. But when, on the other hand, it is stated in 1 Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39, that JVer begat Kish^ the difference may be reconciled in the simplest manner, on the assumption that the iVer mentioned there is not the father, but the grandfather, or a still more remote ancestor of Kish, as the intervening members are frequently passed over in the genealogies. The other ancestors of Kish are never mentioned again. ?\J] 1133 refers to Kish, and signifies not a brave man, but a man of property, as in Ruth ii. 1. This son Saul {i.e. ^^ prayed for :'' for this meaning of the word, comp, ch. i. 17, 27) was " young and beautiful" It is true that even at that time Saul had a son grown up (viz. Jonathan), according to ch. xiii. 2 ; but still, in contrast with his father, he was " a young man," i.e. in the full vigour of youth, probably about forty or forty-five years old. There is no necessity, therefore, to follow the Vulgate rendering electus. No one equalled him in beauty. " From his shoidder upwards he was higher than any of the people" Such a figure as this was well adapted to commend him to the people as their king (cf. ch. x. 24), since size and beauty were highly valued in rulers, as signs of manly strength (see Herod, iii. 20, vii. 187 ; Aristot. Polit. iv. c. 24). — Yers. 3-5. Having been sent out by his father to search for his she-asses which had strayed, Saul went with his servant through the mountains of Ephraim, which ran south- wards into the tribe-territory of Benjamin (see at ch. i. 1), then through the land of Shalishah and the land of Shaalirn, and after that through the land of Benjamin, without finding the asses ; and at length, when he had reached the land of Zuph, he deter- mined to return, because he was afraid that his father might turn his mind from the asses, and trouble himself about them (the son and servant). (!? T}J^j to desist from a thing, to give it up or renounce it. made acquainted with the man whom God had appointed, before the people elected him by lot. And secondly, Saul's behaviour in hiding himself when the lots were cast (ch. s. 21 sqq.), can only be explained on the supposition that Samuel had already informed him that he was the appointed king ; whereas, if this had not been the case, it would be altogether incompre- hensible. •' 88 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. As Saul started in any case from Gibeah of Benjamin, his own home (eh. x. 10 sqq., 26, xi. 4, xv. 34, xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1), i.e. the present Tuleil el PIml, which was an hour or an hour and a half to the north of Jerusalem (see at Josh, xviii. 28), and went thence into the mountains of Ephraim, he no doubt took a north-westerly direction, so that he crossed the boundary of Benjamin somewhere between Bireh and Atarah, and passing through the crest of the mountains of Ephraim, on the west of Gophnah (Jifna), came out into the land of Shalishah. Sha- lishah is unquestionably the country round (or of) Baal-shaKshah (2 Kings iv. 42), which was situated, according to Eusebius (^Onom. s.v. BaiOaapLcrdO : Beth-sarisa or Beth-salisa), in regione Thamnitica, fifteen Roman miles to the north of Diospolis (Lydda), and was therefore probably the country to the west of Jiljilia, where three different wadys run into one large wady, called Kurawa ; and according to the probable conjecture of Thenius, it was from this fact that the district received the name of Shalishah, or Three-land. They proceeded thence in their search to the land of Shaalim : according to the Onom. (s.v.), " a village seven miles off, in finihus Eleutheropoleos contra occidentemr But this is hardly correct, and is most likely connected with the mistake made in transposing the town of Samuel to the neighbourhood of Diospolis (see at ch. i. 1). For since they went on from Shaalim into the land of Benjamin, and then still further into the land of Zuph, on the south-west of Benjamin, they probably turned eastwards from Shalishah, into the country where we find Bent Mussah and Beni Salem marked upon Robinson's and v. de Velde's maps, and where we must therefore look for the land of Shaalim, that they might proceed thence to explore the land of Benjamin from the north- east to the south-west. If, on the contrary, they had gone from Shaalim in a southerly or south-westerly direction, to the district of Eleutheropolis, they M'ould only have entered the land of Benjamin at the south-west corner, and would have had to go all the way back again in order to go thence to the land of Zuph. For we may infer with certainty that the land of Zuph was on the south-west of the tribe-territory of Benjamin, from the fact that, according to ch. x. 2, Saul and his companion passed .Rachel's tomb on their return thence to their own home, and then came to the border of CHAP. IX. 1-10. 89 Benjamin. On the name Zuph, see at cli. i. 1 — Vor. G. When Saul proposed to return home from the land of Zuph, his servant said to him, " Behold, in this city (' this^ referring to the town which stood in front of them upon a hill) is a man of God, much honoured ; all that he saith cometh surely to pass : now we loill go thither ; perhaps he ivill tell us our loay that ice have to go''' (lit. have gone, and still go, sc. to attain the object of our journey, viz. to find the asses). The name of this town is not mentioned either here or in the further course of this history. Nearly all the commentators suppose it to have been Ramah, Samuel's home. But this assumption has no founda- tion at all in the text, and is irreconcilable with the statements respecting the return in ch. x. 2-5. The servant did not say there dioells in this city, but there is in thic city (ver. 6 ; comp, with this ver. 10, " They went into the city where the man of God was," not "dwelt"). It is still more evident, from the answer given by the drawers of water, when Saul asked them, "Is the seer here?'' (ver. 11), — viz. "He came to-day to the city, for the people have a great sacrifice upon the high place'' (ver. 12), — that the seer (Samuel) did not live in the town, but had only come thither to a sacrificial festival. Moreover, " every impartial man will admit, that the fact of Samuel's having honoured Saul as his guest at the sacrificial meal of those who participated in the sacrifice, and of their having slept under the same roof, cannot possibly weaken the impression that Samuel was only there in his peculiar and ofiicial capacity. It could not be otherwise than that the presidency should be assigned to him at the feast itself as priest and prophet, and therefore that the appointments mentioned should proceed from him. And it is but natural to assume that he had a house at his command for any repetition of such sacrifices, Avhich we find from 2 Kings iv. to have been the case in the history of Elisha" (Valentiner). And lastly, the sacrificial festival itself does not point to Ramah ; for although Samuel had built an altar to the Lord at Ramah (ch. vii. 17), this was by no means the only place of sacrifice in the nation. If Samuel offered sacrifice at Mizpeli and Gilgal (ch. vii. 9, X. 8, xiii. 8 sqq.), he could also do the same at other places. What the town really was in which Saul met with him, cannot indeed be determined, since all that we can gather from ch. X. 2 is, that it was situated on the south-west of Bethlehem. 90 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. — Vers. 7-10. Saul's objection, that tliey had no present to bring to the man of God, as the bread was gone from their vessels, was met by the servant with the remark, that he had a quarter of a shekel which he would give. — Ver. 9. Before pro- ceeding with the further progress of the affair, the historian introduces a notice, which was required to throw light upon what follows; namely, that beforetime, if any one wished to inquire of God, i.e. to apply to a prophet for counsel from God upon any matter, it was customary in Israel to say. We will go to the seer, because " he that is now called a prophet icas before- time called a seer."" After this parenthetical remark, the account is continued in ver. 10. Saul declared himself satisfied with the answer of the servant ; and they both went into the town, to ask the man of God about the asses that were lost. Vers. 11-17. As they were going up to the high place of the town, they met maidens coming out of the town to draw water ; and on asking them whether the seer was there, they received this answer : " Yes; behold, he is before thee: mahe haste now, for he has come into the town to-day ; for the people have a sacrifice to-day wpon the high placed Bamah (in the singular) does not mean the height or hill generally ; but throughout it signifies the high place, as a place of sacrifice or praj^er. — Ver. 13. " When ye come into the city, ye loillfind him directly, before he goes up to the high place to eatV 13 not only intro- duces the apodosis, but corresponds to 3, as, so : here, how- ever, it is used with reference to time, in the sense of our " immediately." " For the people are not accustomed to eat till he comes, for he blesses the sacrifice,^^ etc. T}.-^, like evXajelv, refers to the thanksgiving prayer offered before the sacrificial meal. " Go now for him ; ye loill meet him even to-day." The first inx is placed at the beginning for the sake of emphasis, and then repeated at the close. Qi^nz), ^^Even to-day ^ — Ver. 14. When they went into the town, Samuel met them on his way out to go to the high place of sacrifice. Before the meeting itself is described, the statement is introduced in vers. 15-17, that the day before Jehovah had foretold to Samuel that the man was coming to him whom he was to anoint as captain over his people. ]]^ npSj to open any ones ear, equivalent to reveal some- thing to him (ch. xx. 12 ; 2 Sam. vii. 27, etc.). npK'X, Iioillsend thee, i.e. " I will so direct his way in my overruling providence, CHAP. IX. 18-24. 91 that he shall come to thee" (J. H. Mich.). The words, " that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines ; for 1 have looked upon my people, for their cry is come unto me" are not at all at variance with eh. vii. 13. In that passage there is simply the assertion, that there was no more any permanent oppression on the part of the Philistines in the clays of Samuel, such as had taken place before ; but an attempt to recover their supremacy over Israel is not only not precluded, but is even indirectly affirmed (see the comm. on ch. vii. 13). The words before us simply show that the Philistines had then begun to make a fresh attempt to contend for dominion over the Israel- ites. " / have looked upon my people ;" this is to be explained like the similar passage in Ex. ii. 25, " God looked upon the children of Israel," and Ex. iii. 7, " I have looked upon the misery of my people." God's looking was not a quiet, inactive looking on, but an energetic look, which brought help in trouble. " Their cry is come unto me :" this is word for word the same as in Ex. iii. 9. As the Philistines wanted to tread in the foot- steps of the Egyptians, it was necessary that Jehovah should also send His people a deliverer from these new oppressors, by giving them a king. The reason here assigned for the estab- lishment of a monarchy is by no means at variance with the displeasure which God had expressed to Samuel at the desire of the people for a king (ch. viii. 7 sqq.) ; since this displeasure had reference to the state of heart from which the desire had sprung. — Ver. 17. When Samuel saw Saul, the Lord answered him, sc. in reply to the tacit inquiry, ' Is this he?' " Behold, this is the man of ivhom I spake to thee^ "i^'J?, coercere imperio. Vers. 18-24. The thread of the narrative, which was broken off in ver. 15, is resumed in ver. 18. Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and asked him for the seer's house. The expression '^V^<] ^ina is used to define more precisely the general phrase in ver. 14, '^''^[} ^inn D^S3; and there is no necessity to alter ">''J'n in ver. 14 into iJ^t^ö? as Thenius proposes, for '^'^V^ ^ina Ni3 does not mean to go (or be) in the middle of the town, as he imagines, but to go into, or enter, the town ; and the entrance to the town was through the gate. — Ver. 19. Samuel replied, "/ am the seer: go up before me to the high place, and eat with me to-day ; and to-morroio I will send thee away, and make known to thee all that is in thy heart" Letting 92 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. a person go in front was a sign of great esteem. The change from the singular npy to the plural Q^^c'^X may be explained on the ground that, whilst Samuel only spoke to Saul, he intended expressly to invite his servant to the meal as well as himself. " All that is in thine heart^^ does not mean " all that thou hast upon thy heart," i.e. all that troubles thee, for Samuel relieved him of all anxiety about the asses at once by telling him that they were found ; but simply the thoughts of thy heart gene- rally. Samuel would make these known to him, to prove to him that he was a prophet. He then first of all satisfied him respect- ing the asses (ver. 20) : " As for the asses that were lost to thee to-day three days (three days ago), do not set thy heart upon them. (i.e. do not trouble thyself about them), for they are found." After this quieting announcement, by which he had convinced Saul of his seer's gift, Samuel directed Saul's thoughts to that higher thing which Jehovah had appointed for him: "And to whom does all that is worth desiring of Israel belong f is it not to thee, and to all thy father's houseV^ " The desire of Israel" {optima quceque Israel, Vulg. ; " the best in Israel," Luther) is not all that Israel desires, but all that Israel possesses of what is precious or ivorth desiring (see Hag. ii. 7). "The antithesis here is between the asses and every desirable thing " (Seb. Schmidt). Notwithstanding the indefinite character of the words, they held up such glorious things as in prospect for Saul, that he replied in amazement (ver. 21), "Am not I a Benjaminite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? and my family is the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin ('i3 ''t33tJ' is unquestionably a copyist's error for 'J2 ti^C^) ; and hoio speakest thou such a loord to meV Samuel made no reply to this, as he simply wanted first of all to awaken the expectation in Saul's mind of things that he had never dreamt of before. — Ver. 22. When they arrived at the high place, he conducted Saul and his servant into the cell (the apartment prepared for the sacrificial meal), and gave them (the servant as well as Saul, according to the simple customs of antiquity, as being also his guest) a place at the upper end among those who had been invited. There were about thirty persons present, no doubt the most distinguished men of the city, whilst the rest of the people probably encamped in the open air. — Vers. 23, 24. He then ordered the cook to bring the piece which he had directed him to set aside, and to CHAP. IX. 25-27. 93 place it before Saul, namely the leg and f^ vj?n (the article in the place of the relative ; see Ewald, § 331, h) ; i.e. not what was over it, viz. the broth poured upon it (Dathe and Maurer), but what was attached to it (Luther). The x'eference, however, is not to the kidney as the choicest portion (Thenius), for the kidneys w^ere burned upon the altar in the case of all the slain sacrifices (Lev. iii. 4), and only the flesh of the animals offered in sacrifice was applied to the sacrificial meal. What was at- tached to the leg, therefore, can only have been such of the fat upon the flesh as was not intended for the altar. Whether the right or left leg, is not stated : the earlier commentators decide in favour of the left, because the right leg fell to the share of the priests (Lev. vii. 32 sqq.). But as Samuel conducted the whole of the sacrificial ceremony, he may also have offered the sacrifice itself by virtue of his prophetic calling, so that the right leg would fall to his share, and he might have it reserved for his guest. In any case, however, the leg, as the largest and best portion, was to be a piece of honour for Saul (see Gen, xliii. 34). There is no reason to seek for any further symbo- lical meaning in it. The fact that it was Samuel's intention to distinguish and honour Saul above all his other guests, is evident enough from what he said to Saul when the cook had brought the leg : " Behold, that which is reserved is set before thee (Q''i^ is the passive participle, as in Num. xxiv. 21) ; for unto this time hath it been kept for thee, as I said I have invited the people^^ ^"^y^Z is either " to the appointed time of thy coming" or possibly, "for the (this) meeting together." Samuel mentions this to give Saul his guest to understand that he had foreseen his coming in a supernatural way. "i^^.c", saying, i.e. as I said (to the cook). Vers. 25-27. When the sacrificial meal was over, Samuel and Saul went down from the high place into the town, and he (Samuel) talked with him upon the roof (of the house into which Samuel had entered). The flat roofs of the East were used as places of retirement for private conversation (see at Deut. xxii. 8). This conversation did not refer of course to the call of Samuel to the royal dignity, for that was not made known to him as a word of Jehovah till the following day (ver. 27) ; but it was intended to prepare him for that announce- ment: so that O. V. Gerlach's conjecture is probably the correct 94 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. one, viz. that Samuel " talked with Saul concerning the deep religious and political degradation of the people of God, the oppression of the heathen, the causes of the inability of the Israelites to stand against these foes, the necessity for a conver- sion of the people, and the want of a leader who was entirely devoted to the Lord."^ — Ver. 26. "And they rose up early in ^ For ian bj? f^lXB^'DJ? "131^1 the LXX. have x.ot\ liiarpuaxu ru 2aovA fvl T&j ^uficiTi seal iKoi/iiiidyi, " they prepared Saul a bed upon the house, and he slept," from which Clericus conjectured that these translators had read f)1i>5C'^ n3"l"'1 (n^T'l or naTl) ; and Ewald and Thenius propose to alter the Hebrew text in this way. But although '1J1 !iJD''3ii''1 (ver. 26) no doubt presupposes that Saul had slept in Samuel's house, and in fact upon the roof, the remark of Thenius, " that the private conversation upon the roof (ver. 25) comes too early, as Saul did not yet know, and was not to learn till the following day, what was about to take place," does not supply any valid objection to the correctness of the Masoretic text, or any argument in favour of the Septuagint rendering or interpretation, since it rests upon an altogether unfounded and erroneous assumption, viz. that Samuel had talked with Saul about his call to the throne. Moreover, " the strangeness" of the statement in ver. 26, " they rose up early," and then " when the morning dawned, Samuel called," etc., cannot possibly throw any suspicion upon the integrity of the Hebrew text, as this "strange- ness " vanishes when we take ')i'\ ni?J?3 \'T'1 as a more precise definition of WSkJ^'l- The Septuagint translators evidently held the same opinion as their modern defenders. They took offence at Samuel's private conversa- tion with Saul, because he did not make known to him the word of God concerning his call to the throne till the next morning ; and, on the other hand, as their rising the next morning is mentioned in ver. 26, they felt the absence of any allusion to their sleei^ing, and consequently not only interpreted imi by a conjectural emendation as standing for ^3■^^ because D''^3"I0 13") is used in Prov. vii. 16 to signify the spreading of mats or carpets for a bed, but also identified "lO^C^^I with 12DC'N and rendered it iKoi/^'/idyi. At the same time, they did not reflect that the preparation of the bed and their sleeping during the night were both of them matters of course, and there was consec[uently no necessity to mention them ; whereas Samuel's talking with Saul upon the roof was a matter of importance in relation to the whole affair, and one which could not be passed over in silence. Moreover, the correctness of the Hebrew text is confirmed by all the other ancient versions. Not only do the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic follow the Masoretic text, but Jerome does the same in the rendering adojated by him, "^f locutus est cum Saule in solario. Ctimque mane surrexissent ;" 1 hough the words " stravitque Saul in solario et dormivit " have been interpolated probably from the Itala into the text of the Vul- f^ate which has come down to us CHAP. XI 95 the morning : namely, tclien the morning dawn arose, Samuel called to Saul upon the roof {i.e. he called from below within the house up to the roof, where Saul was probably sleeping upon the balcony; cf. 2 Kings iv. 10), Get up, I will conduct thee." As soon as Saul had risen, " they both {both Samuel and Saul) loent out (into the street)." And when they had gone down to the extremity of the town, Samuel said to Saul, " Let the servant pass on before us {and he did so), and do thou remain here for the present ; I icill show thee a word of God." Ch. X. 1. Samuel then took the oil-flask, poured it upon his (Saul's) head, kissed him, and said, " Hath not Jehovah (equi- valent to 'Jehovah assuredly hath') anointed thee to be captain over His inheritance f" ^i^'^j as an expression of lively assurance, receives the force of an independent clause through the follow- ing "'S, "is it not so ? " i.e. " yea, it is so, that," etc., just as it does before C^^ in Gren. iv. 7. ^^^1^^, His (Jehovah's) possession, was the nation of Israel, which Jehovah had acquired as the people of His own possession through their deliverance out of Egypt (Deut. iv. 20, ix. 26, etc.). Anointing with oil was a symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God ; as the oil itself, by virtue of the strength which it gives to the vital spirits, was a symbol of the Spirit of God as the principle of divine and spiritual power (see at Lev. viii. 12), Hitherto there had been no other anointing among the people of God than that of the priests and sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 23 sqq. ; Lev. viii. 10 sqq.). When Saul, therefore, was consecrated as king by anointing, the monarchy was inaugurated as a divine institution, standing on a par with the priesthood ; through which henceforth the Lord would also bestow upon His people the gifts of His Spirit for the building up of His kingdom. As the priests were consecrated by anointing to be the media of the ethical blessings of divine grace for Israel, so the king was consecrated by anointing to be the vehicle and medium of all the blessings of .grace which the Lord, as the God-king, would confer upon His people through the institution of a civil government. Through this anointing, which was performed by Samuel under the direction of God, the king was set apart from the rest of the nation as " anointed of the Lord " (cf. ch. xii. 3, 5, etc.), and sanctified as the T'J3, i.e. its captain, its leader and com- mander. Kissing was probably not a sign of homage or rever- 96 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. ence towards the anointed of the Lord, so much as " a kiss of affection, with which the grace of God itself was sealed" (Seb. Schmidt).^ Vers. 2—7. To confirm the consecration of Saul as king over Israel, which had been effected through the anointing, Samuel gave him three more signs which would occur on his journey home, and would be a pledge to him that Jehovah would accompany his undertakings with His divine help, and practically accredit him as His anointed. These signs, there- fore, stand in the closest relation to the calling conveyed to Saul through his anointing. — Ver. 2. The first sign: " When thou goest aioay froin me to-day (i.e. now), thou wilt meet two men at RacheVs sepidchi'e, on the horder of Benjamin at Zelzah; and they will say unto thee, The asses of thy father, lohich thou iventest to seek, are found. Behold, thy father hath given up riijhxn '»nnvnsij the ivords (i.e. talking) about the asses, and trouhleth himself about you, saying. What shall I do about my son ? " According to Gen. XXXV. 16 sqq., Rachel's sepulchre was on the way from Bethel 1 The IjXX. and Vulgate liave expanded the second half of this verse by a cousiderable addition, which reads as follows in the LXX. : ovx,l aixpix-i in03 ; it simply shows that this was the interpretation which they gave to t^'1-|nD^• And Josephus (vi. 5, 1), who is also appealed to, simply establishes the fact that öi; f^sral [/-viua. stood in the Sept. version of his day, since he made use of this version and not of the original text. Moreover, we cannot say with Ewald, that this was the last place in which the time could be overlooked ; for it is perfectly evi- dent that Nahash commenced the siege of Jabesh shortly after the election of Saul at Mizpeh, as we may infer from the verb ^j;»"!, when taken in con- nection with the fact implied in ch. xii. 12, that he had commenced the war with the Israelites before this. And lastly, it is much more j^robable that the LXX. changed K^i-inDD into C'lriM, than that the Hebrew readers of the Old Testament should have altered ti^iriDD into ti'^inOD, without defining the time more precisely by TPIX) or some other number. CHAP. XL 6 11. in see that lie must have penetrated very far into the territory of the IsraeHtes. The inhabitants of Jabesh petitioned the Ammonites in their distress, " Make a covenant with us, and ice ivill serve thee;" i.e. grant us favourable terms, and we will submit. — Ver. 2. But Nahash replied, " Oil this condition (^nsD, lit. at this price, 2 pretii) will I vialce a covenant with you, that I may ^jut out all your right eyes, and so bring a reproach upon all Israel.'^ From the fact that the infinitive "lipJ is continued with ''^pj?'"!, it is evident that the subject to lipJ is Nahash, and not the Israelites, as the Syriac, Arabic, and others have rendered it. The suffix to '^''Jjip'^ is neuter, and refers to the previous clause : " zY," i.e. the putting out of the right eye. This answer on the part of Nahash shows unmistakeably that he sought to avenge upon the people of Israel the shame of the defeat which Jephthah had inflicted upon the Ammonites. — Ver. 3. The elders of Jabesh replied : " Leave tis seven days, that toe may send messengers into all the territory of Israel; and if there is no one who saves us, we will come out to thee^'' i.e. will surrender to thee. This request was granted by Nahash, because he was not in a condition to take the town at once by storm, and also probably because, in the state of internal dissolution into which Israel had fallen at that time, he had no expectation that any vigorous help would come to the inhabitants of Jabesh. From the fact that the mes- sengers were to be sent into all the territory of Israel, we may conclude that the Israelites had no central government at that time, and that neither Nahash nor the Jabeshites had heard anything of the election that had taken place ; and this is still more apparent from the fact that, according to ver. 4, their messengers came to Gibeah of Saul, and laid their business before the people generally, without applying at oiice to Saul. — Ver. 5. Saul indeed did not hear of the matter till he came (returned home) from the field behind the oxen, and found the people weeping and lamenting at these mournful tidings. ^^ Behind the oxen," i.e., judging from the expression "yoke of oxen " in ver. 7, the pair of oxen with which he had been ploughing. Vers. 6-11. AVhen the report of the messengers had been communicated to him, " the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him^ and his anger was kindled greatly," sc. at the shame which the 112 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Ammonites had resolved to bring upon all Israel. — Yer. 7. He took a yoke of oxen, cut them in pieces, and sent (the pieces) into every possession of Israel by messengers, and said, " Who- ever cometh not forth after Saul and Samuel, so shall it he done unto- his oxen." The introduction of Samuel's name after that of Saul, is a proof that Saul even as king still recognised the authority which Samuel possessed in Israel as the prophet of Jehovah. This symbolical act, like the cutting up of the woman in Judg. xix. 29, made a deep impression. " The fear of Jehovah fell upon the people, so that they went out as one man." By " the fear of Jehovah " we are not to understand helfia iraviKov (Thenius and Böttcher), for Jehovah is not equi- valent to Elohim, nor the fear of Jehovah in the sense of fear of His punishment, but a fear inspired by Jehovah. In Savd's energetic appeal the people discerned the power of Jehovah, which inspired them with fear, and impelled them to immediate obedience. — Ver. 8. Saul held a muster of the people of war, who had gathered together at (or near) Bezek, a place which was situated, according to the Onom. (s. v. Bezek), about seven hours to the north of Nabulus towards Beisan (see at Judg. i. 4). The number assembled were 300,000 men of Israel, and 30,000 of Judah. These numbers will not appear too large, if we bear in mind that the allusion is not to a regular army, but that Saul had summoned all the people to a general levy. In the distinction drawn between the children of Judah and the children of Israel we may already discern a trace of that separation of Judah from the rest of the tribes, which even- tually led to a formal secession on the part of the latter. — Yer. 9. The messengers from Jabesh, who had been waiting to see the result of Saul's appeal, were now despatched with this message to their fellow-citizens : " To-morrow you will have help, lühen the sun shines hot," i.e. about noon. — Yer. 10. After receiving these joyful news, the Jabeshites announced to the Ammonites : " To-morroio we ivill come out to you, and ye may do to us ivhat seemeih good to you," — an untrutli by which they hoped to assure the besiegers, so that they might be fallen upon unexpectedly by the advancing army of Saul, and thoroughly beaten. — Yer. 11. The next day Saul arranged the people in three divisions (a''C'S"i, as in Judg. vii. 16), who forced their way into the camp of the foe fi'om three different sides, in the CHAP. XI. 12-15. 113 morning watch (between three and six o'clock in the morning), smote the Ammonites " till the heat of the day," and routed them so completely, that those who remained were all scattered, and there wei'e not two men left together. Vers. 12-15. Eenewal of the Monarchy. — Saul had so thoroughly acted the part of a king in gaining this victory, and the people were so enthusiastic in his favour, that they said to Samuel, viz. after their return from the battle, " Who is he that said, Saul should reign over us ! " The clause 13vy ^IPIpl ^ISK' contains a question, though it is indicated simply by the tone, and there is no necessity to alter 7'^^^ into ^iSti'n. These words refer to the exclamation of the worthless people in ch. x. 27. " Bring the men (who spoke in this manner), that ice may put them to deathr But Saul said, " There shall not a man be put to death this day ; for to-day Jehovah hath wrought salvation in Israel;" and proved thereby not only his magnanimity, but also his genuine piety.^ — Ver. 14. Samuel turned this victory to account, by calling upon the people to go with him to Gilgal, and there renew the monarchy. In what the renewal consisted is not clearly stated ; but it is simply recorded in ver. 15 that " they (the whole people) made Said king there before the Lord in Gilgaiy Many commentators have supposed that he was anointed afresh, and appeal to David's second anointing (2 Sam. ii. 4 and v. 3). But David's example merely proves, as Seb. Schmidt has correctly observed, that the anointing could be repeated under certain circumstances; but it does not prove that it was repeated, or must have been repeated, in the case of Saul. If the ceremony of anointing had been performed, it would no doubt have been mentioned, just as it is in 2 Sam. ii. 4 and v. 3. But l^pp^ does not mean " they anointed," although the LXX. have rendered it e;\;pic7e ^a/nov^X, accord- ing to their own subjective interpretation. The renewal of the nionarchy may very well have consisted in nothing more than ^ " Not only signifying that the public rejoicing should not be inter- rupted, but reminding them of the clemency of God, and urging that since Jehovah had shown such clemency upon that day, that He had overlooked their sins, and given them a glorious victory, it was only right that they should follow His example, and forgive their neighbours' sins without bloodshed." — Sei. Schmidt. 114 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL, a solemn confirmation of the election that had taken place at Mizpeh, in which Samuel once more laid before both king and people the right of the monarchy, receiving from both parties in the presence of the Lord the promise to observe this right/ and sealing the vow by a solemn sacrifice. The only sacrifices mentioned are zehacJiim shelamim, i.e. peace-offerings. These were thank-offerings, which were always connected with a sacrificial meal, and when presented on joyous occasions, formed a feast of rejoicing for those who took part, since the sacrificial meal shadowed forth a living and peaceful fellowship with the Lord. Gilgal is in all probability the place where Samuel judged the people every year (ch. vii. 16). But whether it was the Gilgal in the plain of the Jordan, or Jiljilia on higher ground to the south-west of Shiloh, it is by no means easy to determine. The latter is favoured, apart from the fact that Samuel did not say " Let us go down," but simply " Let us go " (cf. ch. X. 8), by the circumstance that the solemn ceremony took place after the return from the war at Jabesh ; since it is hardly likely that the people would have gone down into the valley of the Jordan to Gilgal, whereas Jiljilia was close by the road from Jabesh to Gibeali and ßamah. Samuel's address at the eenewal of the monarchy. — CHAP. XII. Samuel closed this solemn confirmation of Saul as king with an address to all Israel, in which he handed over the office of judge, which he had hitherto filled, to the king, who had been appointed by God and joyfully recognised by the people. The good, however, which Israel expected from the king depended entirely upon both the people and their king maintaining that proper attitude towards the Lord with which the prosperity of Israel was ever connected. This truth the prophet felt impelled to impress most earnestly upon the hearts of all the people on this occasion. To this end he reminded them, that neither he himself, in the administration of his office, nor the Lord in His guidance of Israel thus far, had given the people any reason for asking a king when the Ammonites invaded the land (vers. 1-12). Nevertheless the Lord had given them a king, and Would not withdraw His hand from them, if they would only CHAP. XII. 1-6. 115 fear Him and confess their sin (vers. 13-15). This address was then confirmed by the Lord at Samuel's desire, through a miraculous sign (vers. 16-18) ; whereupon Samuel gave to the people, who were terrified by the miracle and acknowledged their sin, the comforting promise that the Lord would not for- sake His people for His great name's sake, and then closed his address with the assurance of his continued intercession, and a renewed appeal to them to serve the Lord with faithfulness (vers. 19-25). With this address Samuel laid down his office as judge, but without therefore ceasing as prophet to represent the people before God, and to maintain the rights of God in relation to the king. In this capacity he continued to support the king with his advice, until he was compelled to announce his rejection on account of his repeated rebellion against the commands of the Lord, and to anoint David as his successor. Vers. 1-6. The time and place of the following address are not given. But it is evident from the connection with the pre- ceding chapter implied in the expression I^N'I, and still more from the introduction (vers. 1, 2) and the entire contents of the address, that it was delivered on the renewal of the monarchy at Gilgal. — Vers. 1, 2. Samuel starts with the fact, that he had given the people a king in accordance with their own desire, who would now walk before them, i^p^^ with the participle ex- presses what is happening, and will happen still. ''JS^ U?l'0'? must not be restricted to going at the head in war, but signifies the general direction and government of the nation, which had been in the hands of Samuel as judge before the election of Saul as king. "And I have grown old and grey C^?^ from ^^VO ') o.nd my sons, behold, they are with you" With this allu- sion to his sons, Samuel simply intended to confirm what he had said about his own age. By the further remark, " aiid I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day^'' he prepares the way for the following appeal to the people to bear witness concerning his conduct in office. — Ver. 3. " Bear ivitness against me before the Xo?y/," i.e. looking up to the Lord, the omnipotent and righteous God-king, " and before His anointed,'' the visible administrator of His divine government, whether I have com- mitted any injustice in my office of judge, by appropriating another's property, or by oppression and violence (VP^, to pound or crush in pieces, when used to denote an act of violence, is 116 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. stronger than P^V, with which it is connected here and in many other passages, e.g. Dent, xxviii. 33 ; Amos iv. 1), or by taking atonement money ("is's, redemption or atonement money, is used, as in Ex. xxi. 30 and Num. xxxv. 31, to denote a payment made by a man to redeem himself fi'om capital punishment), " so that I had covered my eyes with it" viz. to exempt from punishment a man who was worthy of death. The 13, which is construed with Civyn^ is the 3 instrumenii, and refers to "IS*3 ; consequently it is not to be confounded with Ip, "to hide from," which would be quite unsuitable here. The thought is not that the judge covers his eyes from the copher, that he may not see the bribe, but that he covers his eyes with the money offered him as a bribe, so as not to see and not to punish the crime committed. — Ver. 4. The people answered Samuel, that he had not done them any kind of injustice. — Ver. 5. To confirm this declara- tion on the part of the people, he then called Jehovah and His anointed as witnesses against the people, and they accepted these witnesses, ^^r^? is the subject to l^X'l ; and the Keri ^ilO^^'l, though more simple, is by no means necessaiy. Samuel said, " Jehovah he icitness against you," because with the declaration which the people had made concerning Samuel's judicial labours they had condemned themselves, inasmuch as they had thereby acknowledged on oath that there was no ground for their dissatisfaction with Samuel's administration, and conse- quently no well-founded reason for their request for a king. — Ver. 6. But in order to bring the people to a still more thorough acknowledgment of their sin, Samuel strengthened still more their assent to his solemn appeal to God, as expressed in the words "i/e is zvitiiess," by saying, "Jehovah (i.e. yea, the witness is Jehovah), who made Moses and Aaron, and brought your fathers out of the land of Egypt." The context itself is suffi- cient to show that the expression " is witness " is understood ; and there is no reason, therefore, to assume that the word has dropped out of the text through a copyist's error, nbj?^ to make, in a moral and historical sense, i.e. to make a person what he is to be ; it has no connection, therefore, with his physical birth, but simply relates to his introduction upon the stage of history, like TTotecv, Heb. iii. 2. But if Jehovah, who redeemed Israel out of Egypt by the hands of Moses and Aaron, and exalted it into His own natioA, was witness of the unselfishness and ( CHAP. XII. 7-12. 117 impartiality of Samuel's conduct in his office of judge, then Israel had grievously sinned by demanding a king. In the person of Samuel they had rejected Jehovah their God, who had given them their rulers (see ch. viii. 7). Samuel proves this still further to the people from the following history. Vers. 7-12. ^' And now come hither, and I loill reason with you before the Lord with regard to all the righteous acts which He has shoion to you and your father sP '^^P'^V, righteous acts, is the expression used to denote the benefits which Jehovah had con- ferred upon His people, as being the results of His covenant fidelity, or as acts which attested the righteousness of the Lord in the fulfilment of the covenant grace which He had promised to His people. — Ver. 8. The first proof of this was furnished by the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and their safe guidance into Canaan (" this place " is the land of Canaan). The second was to be found in the deliverance of the people out of the power of their foes, to whom the Lord had been obliged to give them up on account of their apostasy from Him, through the judges whom He had raised up for them, as often as they turned to Him with penitence and cried to Him for help. Of the hostile oppressions which overtook the Israel- ites during this period of the judges, the following are singled out in ver. 9 : (1) that by Sisera, the commander-in-chief of Hazor, i.e. that of the Canaanitish king Jabin of Hazor (Judg. iv. 2 sqq.) ; (2) that of the Philistines, by which we are to understand not so much the hostilities of that nation described in Judg. iii. 31, as the forty years' oppression mentioned in Judg. X. 2 and xiii. 1 ; and (3) the Moabitish oppression under Eglon (Judg. iii. 12 sqq.). The first half of ver. 10 agrees almost word for word with Judg. x. 10, except that, according to Judg. X. 6, the Ashtaroth are added to the Baalim (see at ch. vii. 4 and Judg. ii. 13). Of the judges whom God sent to the people as deliverers, the following are named, viz. Jerub- baal (see at Judg. vi. 32), i.e. Gideon (Judg. vi.), and Bedan, and Jephthah (see Judg. xi.), and Samuel. There is no judge named Bedan mentioned either in the book of Judges or any- where else. The name Bedan only occurs again in 1 Chron. vii. 17, among the descendants of Machir the Manassite : con- sequently some of the commentators suppose Jair of Gilead to .be the judge intended. But such a supposition is perfectly 118 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. arbitrary, as it is not rendered probable by any identity in the two names, and Jair is not described as having deHvered Israel from any hostile oppression. Moreover, it is extremely impro- bable that Samuel should have mentioned a judge here, who had been passed over in the book of Judges on account of his comparative insignificance. There is also just as little ground for rendering Bedan as an appellative, e.g. the Danite (hen-Dan), as Kimchi suggests, or corpulentus as Böttcher maintains, and so connecting the name with Samson. There is no other course left, therefore, than to regard Bedan as an old copyist's error for Barak (Judg. iv.), as the LXX., Syriac, and Arabic have done, — a conclusion which is favoured by the circumstance that Barak was one of the most celebrated of the judges, and is placed by the side of Gideon and Jephthah in Heb. xi. 32. The Syriac, Arabic, and one Greek MS. (see Kennicott in the Addenda to his Dissert. Gener.), have the name of Samson instead of Samuel. But as the LXX., Chald., and Vulg. all agree with the Hebrew text, there is no critical ground for rejecting Samuel, the more especially as the objection raised to it, viz. that Samuel would not have mentioned himself, is far too trivial to overthrow the reading supported by the most ancient versions ; and the assertion made by Thenius, that Samuel does not come down to his own times until the follow- ing verse, is altogether unfounded. Samuel could very well- class himself with the deliverers of Israel, for the simple reason that it was by him that the people were delivered from the forty years' tyranny of the Philistines, whilst Samson merely commenced their deliverance and did not bring it to completion. Samuel appears to have deliberately mentioned his own name along with those of the other judges who were sent by God, that he might show the people in the most striking manner (ver. 12) that they had no reason whatever for saying to him, " iVäy, hut a king shall reign over us," as soon as the Ammonites invaded Gilead. " As Jehovah your God is your King" i.e. has ever proved himself to be your King by sending judges to deliver you. Vers. 13-18a. After the prophet had thus held up before the people their sin against the Lord, he bade them still further consider, that the king would only procure for them the antici- pated deliverance if they would fear the Lord, and give up CHAP. XII. 13-18. lis their rebellion against God. — Ver. 13. " But now behold the king whom ye have chosen, whom ye have ashed for! behold, Jehovah hath set a king over you." By the second njini, the thought is brought out still more strongly, that Jehovah had fulfilled the desire of the people. Although the request of the people had been an act of hostility to God, yet Jehovah had ful- filled it. The word Ci^"}n^, relating to the choice by lot (ch. x. 17 sqq.), is placed before DJäIc*^^ *l??'^^, to show that the demand was the strongest act that the people could perform. They had not only chosen the king with the consent or by the direction of Samuel ; they had even demanded a king of their own self- will. — Ver. 14. Still, since the Lord had given them a king, the further welfare of the nation would depend upon whether they would follow the Lord from that time forward, or whether they would rebel against Him again. " J^f y^ '^'^'^H only fear the Lord, and serve Him, . . . and ye as loell as the king who rules over yoxi will be after Jehovah your God." 05^, in the sense of modo, if only, does not require any apodosis, as it is virtually equivalent to the wish, " 0 that ye would only I" for which C355 with the imperfect is commonly used (vid. 2 Kings xx. 19 ; Prov. xxiv. 11, etc. ; and Ewald, § 329, b). There is also nothing to be supplied to nin;' nnx . . . Dri\"T), since "inx njn, to be after or behind a person, is good Hebrew, and is frequently met with, particularly in the sense of attaching one's self to the king, or holding to him (yid. 2 Sam. ii. 10 ; 1 Kings xii. 20, xvi. 21, 22). This meaning is also at the foundation of the present passage, as Jehovah was the God-king of Israel. — Ver. 15. " But if ye do not hearken to the voice of Jehovah, and strive against His commandment, the hand of Jehovah will be heavy upon you, as upon your fathersV \ in the sense of as, i.e. used in a comparative sense, is most frequently placed before whole sentences (see Ewald, § 340, 5) ; and the use of it here may be explained, on the ground that D5''rihN3 contains the force of an entire sentence : " as it was upon your fathers." The allusion to the fathers is very suitable here, because the people were looking to the king for the removal of all the cala- mities, which had fallen upon them from time immemorial. The paraphrase of this word, which is adopted in the Septuagint, eVt rov ßaaikea vficov, is a very unhappy conjecture, although Thenius proposes to alter the text to suit it. — Ver. 16. In order 120 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. to give still greater emphasis to his words, and to secure their lasting, salutary effect upon the people, Samuel added still further : Even now ye may see that ye have acted very wickedly in the sight of Jehovah, in demanding a king. This chain of thought is very clearly indicated by the words nny'Dii, " yea, ' even nowV " Even now come liitlier, and see this great thing which Jehovah does before your eyesT The words nriy"Da, which are placed first, belong, so far as the sense is concerned, to 'I'lTiS ^S~i ; and ^2Jf^^n (^" jylace yourselves,^' i.e. make your- selves ready) is merely inserted between, to fix the attention of the people more closely upon the following miracle, as an event of great importance, and one which they ought to lay to heart. " Is it not noio wheat harvest ? I ivill call to Jehovah, that He may give thunder (ni^p, as in Ex. ix. 23, etc.) and rain. Then perceive and see, that the evil is great lohich ye have done in the eyes of Jehovah, to demand a king.'' The Avheat harvest occurs in Palestine between the middle of ]\Iay and the middle of June (see my Bihl. Arch. i. § 118). And during this time it scarcely ever rains. Thus Jerome affirms {ad Am. c. 4) : " Nunquam in fine mensis Junii aut in Julio in Ids provinciis maximeque in Judaea pluvias vidimus." And Robinson also says in his Pales- tine (ii. p. 98) : " In ordinary seasons, from the cessation of the showers in spring until their commencement in October and November, rain never falls, and the sky is usually serene" (see ray Arch. i. § 10). So that when God sent thunder and rain on that day in answer to Samuel's appeal to him, this was a miracle of divine omnipotence, intended to show to the people that the judgments of God might fall upon the sinners at any time. Thunderings, as " the voices of God" (Ex. ix. 28), are harbingers of judgment. Vers. 186-25. This miracle therefore inspired the people with a salutary terror. " All the j^^ople greatly feai^ed the Lord and Samuel" and entreated the prophet, " Pray for thy servants to the Lord thy God, that we die not, because we have added to all our sins the evil thing, to ash us a king." — Vers. 20, 21 Samuel thereupon announced to them first of all, that the Lord would not forsake His people for His great name's sake, if they would only serve Him with uprightness. In order, however, to give no encouragement to any false trust in the covenant faithfulness of the Lord, after the comforting words, " Fear' CHAP. XII. 18-25. 121 not^^ he told them again very decidedly that they had done wrong, but that now they were not to turn away from the Lord, but to serve Him with all their heart, and not go after vain idols. To strengthen this admonition, he repeats the r\>DT\ NP in ver. 21, with the explanation, that in turning from the Lord they would fall away to idols, which could not bring them either help or deliverance. To the ''3 after ^il^Dri the same verb must be supplied from the context : " Do not turn aside (from the Lord), for (ye turn aside) after that ivhich is vain" inFirij the vain, worthless thing, signifies the false gods. This will explain the construction with a plural : " which do not pro/It and do not save, because they are emptiness " {iohu\ i.e. worthless beings {elilim, Lev. xix. 4 ; cf. Isa. xliv. 9 and Jer. xvi. 19). — Ver. 22. " For C^ gives the reason for the main thought of the previous verse, ' Fear not, but serve the Lord,' etc.) tliC Lord loill not forsahe His people for His great namens sähe ; for it hath pleased the Lord (for ^''^^in^ see at Deut. i. 5) to malce you His people." The emphasis lies upon His. This the Israelites could only be, when they proved themselves to be the people of God, by serving Jehovah with all their heart. " For His great namens sake" i.e. for the great name which He had acquired in the sight of all the nations, by the marvellous guidance of Israel thus far, to preserve it against misappre- hension and blasphemy (see at Josh. vii. 9). — Ver. 23. Samuel then promised the people his constant intercession : " Far be it from nie to sin against the Lord, that I should cease to pray for you, and to instruct you in the good and right way," i.e. to work as prophet for your good. " In this he sets a glorious example to all rulers, showing them that they should not be led astray by the ingratitude of their subordinates or subjects, and give up on that account all interest in their welfare, but should rather persevere all the more in their anxiety for them" {Berleb. Bible). — Vers. 24, 25. Lastly, he repeats once more his admo- nition, that they would continue stedfast in the fear of God, threatening at the same time the destruction of both king and people if they should do wrong (on ver. 24a, see ch. vii. 3 and Josh. xxiv. 14, where the form ^X"i^ is also found). " For see ichat great things He has done for you" (shown to you), not by causing it to thunder and rain at Samuel's prayer, but by giving them a king. Dy ?''"n3n, as in Gen. xix. 19. 122 the first book of samuel. Saul's reign, and his unseasonable sacrifice in the WAR against the PHILISTINES. — CHAP. XIII. The history of the reign of Saul commences with this chapter ;^ and according to the standing custom in the history of the kings, it opens with a statement of the age of the king when he began to reign, and the number of years that his reign lasted. If, for example, we compare the form and con- tents of this verse with 2 Sam. ii. 10, v. 4, 1 Kings xiv. 21, ^ The connection of vers. 8-11 of this chapter with ch. x. 8 is adduced in support of the hypothesis that ch. xiii. forms a direct continuation of the account that was broken off in ch. x. 16. This connection must be admitted ; but it by no means follows that in the source from which the books before us were derived, ch. xiii. was directly attached to ch. viii. 16, and that Samuel intended to introduce Saul publicly as king here in Gilgal immediately before the attack upon the Philistines, to consecrate him by the solemn presentation of sacrifices, and to connect with this the reli- gious consecration of the approaching campaign. For there is net a word about any such intention in the chapter before us or in ch. x. 8, nor even the slightest hint at it. Thenius has founded this view of his upon his erroneous interpretation of nTT" in ch. x. 8 as an imperative, as if Samuel intended to command Saul to go to Gilgal immediately after the occur- rence of the signs mentioned in ch. x. 2 sqq. : a view which is at variance with the instructions given to him, to do what his hand should find after the occurrence of those signs (see p. 101). To this we may also add the following objections : How is it conceivable that Saul, who concealed his anointing even from his own family after his return from Samuel to Gibeah (ch. x. 16), should have immediately after chosen 3000 men of Israel to begin the war against the Philistines? How did Saul attain to any such distinction, that at his summons all Israel gathered round him as their king, even before he had been publicly proclaimed king in the pre- sence of the people, and before he had secured the confidence of the people by any kingly heroic deed ? The fact of his having met with a band of prophets, and even prophesied in his native town of Gibeah after his departure from Samuel, and that this had become a proverb, is by no means enough to explain the enterprises described in ch. xiii. 1-7, which so absolutely demand the incidents that occurred in the meantime as re- corded in ch. X. 17-xii. 25 even to make them intelligible, that any writing in which ch. xiii. 2 sqq. followed directly upon ch. x. 16 would necessarily be regarded as utterly faulty. This fact, which I have already adduced in my examination of the hypothesis defended by Thenius in my Introduction to the Old Testament (p. 168), retains its force undiminished, even though, after a renewed investigation of the question, I have given up the supposed connection between ch. x. 8 and the proclamation mentioned in ch. xi. 14 sqq., which I defended there. CHAP. XIII. 123 * xxii. 42, 2 Kings viii. 26, and other passages, where the age is given at which Ishbosheth, David, and many of the kings of Judah began to reign, and also the number of years that their reign lasted, there can be no doubt that our verse was also intended to give the same account concerning Saul, and there- fore that every attempt to connect this verse with the one which follows is opposed to the uniform historical usage. More- over, even if, as a matter of necessity, the second clause of ver. 1 could be combined with ver. 2 in the following manner : He was two years king over Israel, then Saul chose 3000 men, etc. ; the first half of the verse would give no reasonable sense, according to the Masoretic text that has come down to us. i370n Ss^ ^^^'1? cannot possibly be rendered ''jam per annum regnaverat Saul" " Saul had been king for a year," or " Saul reigned one year," but can only mean " Saul ivas a year old when he became king" This is the way in which the words have been correctly rendered by the Sept. and Jerome ; and so also in the Chaldee paraphrase (" Saul was an innocent child when he began to reign ") this is the way in which the text has been understood. It is true that this statement as to his age is obviously false ; but all that follows from that is, that there is an error in the text, namely, that between |3 and HJ^ the age has fallen out, — a thing which could easily take place, as there are many traces to show that originally the numbers were not written in words, but only in letters that were used as numerals. This gap in the text is older than the Septuagint version, as our present text is given there. There is, it is true, an anony- mus in the hexapla, in which we find the reading vlo'i rpiaKovra ejcav XaovK; but this is certainly not according to ancient MSS., but simply according to a private conjecture, and that an incorrect one. For. since Saul already had a son, Jonathan, who commanded a division of the army in the very first years df his reign, and therefore must have been at least twenty years of age, if not older, Saul himself cannot have been less than forty years old when he began to reign. Moreover, in the second half of the verse also, the number given is evi- dently a wrong one, and the text therefore equally corrupt; for the rendering "xvhen he had reigned two years over Israel" is opposed both by the parallel passages already quoted, and also by the introduction of the name Saul as the subject in ver. 2a, 124 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. which shows very clearly that ver. 2 commences a fresh sen- tence, and is not merely the apodosis to ver. lb. But Saul's reign must have lasted longer than two years, even if, in oppo- sition to all analogies to be found elsewhere, we should under- stand- the two years as merely denoting the length of his reign up to the time of his rejection (ch. xv.), and not till the time of his death. Even then he reigned longer than that ; for he could not possibly have carried on all the wars mentioned in ch. xiv. 47, with Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah and the Philistines, in the space of two years. Consequently a numeral, say D, twenty, must also have dropped out before D^r^' •'jRC' (two years) ; since there are cogent reasons for assum- ing that his reign lasted as long as twenty or twenty-two years, reckoning to the time of his death. We have given the reasons themselves in connection with the chronology of the period of the judges (vol. iv. pp. 283-4).^ Vers. 2-7. The war ivith the Philistines (ch. xiii. xiv.) cer- tainly falls, at least so far as the commencement is concerned,* in the very earliest part of Saul's reign. This we must infer partly from the fact, that at the very time when Saul was seeking for his father's asses, there was a military post of the Philistines at Gibeah (ch. x. 5), and therefore the Philistines had already occupied certain places in the land ; and partly also from the fact, that according to this chapter Saul selected an ai'my of 3000 men out of the whole nation, took up his post at Michmash with 2000 of them, placing the other thousand at Gibeah under his son Jonathan, and sent the rest of the people home (ver. 2), because his first intention was simply to check the further advance of the Philistines. The dismission of the rest of the people to their own homes presupposes that the whole of the fio-hting men of the nation were assembled tocrether. But as no other summoning together of the people has been ^ The traditional account that Saul reigned forty years (Acts xiii. 24, and Josephus, AjH. vi. 14, 9) is supposed to have arisen, according to the conjecture of Thenius (on 2 Sam. ii. 10), from the fact that his son Ish- bosheth was forty years old when he began to reign, and the notion that as he is not mentioned among the sons of Saul in 1 Sam. xiv. 49, he must have been born after the commencement of Saul's own reign. This con- jecture is certainly a probable one ; but it is much more natural to assume that as David and Solomon reigned forty years, it arose from the desire to make Saul's reign equal to theirs. \ CHAP. XIII. 2-7. 125 mentioned before, except to the war upon the Ammonites at Jabesh (ch. xi. 6, 7), where all Israel gathered together, and at the close of which Samuel had called the people and their king to Gilgal (ch. xi. 14), the assumption is a very probable one, that it was there at Gilgal, after the renewal of the monarchy, that Saul formed the resolution at once to make war upon the Philistines, and selected 3000 fighting men for the purpose out of the whole number that were collected together, and then dismissed the remainder to their homes. In all probability Saul did not consider that either he or the Israelites were suffi- ciently prepared as yet to undertake a war upon the Philistines generally, and therefore resolved, in the first place, only to attack the outpost of the Philistines, which was advanced as far as Gibeah, with a small number of picked soldiers. According to this simple view of affairs, the war here described took place at the very commencement of Saul's reign ; and the chapter before us is closely connected with the preceding one. — Ver. 2. Saul posted himself at Michmash and on the mount of Bethel with his two thousand men. Michmash, the present Mulchmas, a village in ruins upon the northern ridge of the Wady Suweinit, according to the Onom. (s. v. Machmas), was only nine Poman miles to the north of Jerusalem, wdiereas it took Robinson three hours and a half to go from one to the other {Pal. ii. p. 117). Bethel {Beitin ; see at Josh. vii. 2) is to the north-west of this, at a distance of two hours' journey, if you take the road past Deir-Diwan. The mountain pn) of Bethel cannot be precisely determined. Bethel itself was situated upon very high ground ; and the ruins of Beitin are completely surrounded by heights (Pob. ii. p. 126 ; and v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 178-9). Jonathan stationed himself with his thousand men at (by) Gibeah of Benjamin, the native place and capital of Saul, which was situated upon Tell el Phul (see at Josh, xviii. 28), about an hour and a half from Michmas. — Ver. 3. ^^And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that teas at Geba" probably the military post mentioned in ch. x. 5, which had been advanced in the meantime as far as Geba. For Geba is not to be con- founded with Gibeah, from which it is clearly distinguished in ver. 16 as compared with ver. 15, but is the modern Jeba, between the Wady Smoeinit and Wady Fara, to the north-west of Ramah (er-Räm ; see at Josh, xviii. 24). " The Philistines 126 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. heard this. And Saul had the trumpet blown throughout the whole land, and proclamation made : let the Hebrews hear it.'' ")bS7 after "iSitJ'a V\^r\ points out the proclamation that was made after the alarm given bj the shophar (see 2 Sam. xx. 1 ; 1 Kings i. 34, 39, etc.). The object to " let them hear" may be easily supplied from the context, viz. Jonathan's feat of arms. Saul had this trumpeted in the whole land, not only as a joyful message for the Hebrews, but also as an indirect summons to the whole nation to rise and make war upon the Philistines. In the word V^^ (hear), there is often involved the idea of observing, laying to heart that which is heiard. If we under- stand ^V^'^'\ in this sense here, and the next verse decidedly hints at it, there is no ground whatever for the objection which Thenius, who follows the LXX., has raised to nnnyn ^i;otJ'^. He proposes this emendation, Q''"]3J?ri ly^'D';, " let the Hebrews fall away," according to the Alex, text yOeryjKacrcv at SovXoc, without reflecting that the very expression ol SovXoi, is sufficient to render the Alex, reading suspicious, and that Saul could not have summoned the people in all the land to fall away from the Philistines, since they had not yet conquered and taken pos- session of the whole. Moreover, the correctness of '^Vp^\ is confirmed by ^Vr;)f ^?ciss of Michmash ;" i.e. the Philistines pushed forward a company of soldiers to the pass p^y?, the crossing ])lace) of Michmash, to prevent an attack being made by the Israelites upon their camp. Between Geha and Michmash there runs the great deep Wady es Suweinit, which goes down from Beitin and Bireh (Bethel and Beeroth) to the valley of the Jordan, and intersects the ridge upon which the two places are situated, so that the sides of the wady form very precipitous walls. When Robinson was travellino; from Jeba to Mukhmas he had to go down a very steep and rugged path into this deep wady (P«7. ii. p. 116). " The way," he says in his Biblical Researchesy p. 289, " was so steep, and the rocky steps so high, that we were compelled to dismount ; while the baggage mules got along with great difficulty. Here, where we crossed, several short side wadys came in from the south-west and north-west. The ridges between these terminate in elevating points pro- jecting into the great wady ; and the most easterly of these bluffs on each side were probably the outposts of the two gar- 136 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. risons of Israel and the Philistines. The road passes around the eastern side of the southern hill, the post of Israel, and then strikes up over the western part of the northern one, the post of the Philistines, and the scene of Jonathan's adventure." Jonathan's heroic act, and Israel's victory over the PHILISTINES. Saul's wars and family. — chap xiv. Vers. 1-15. Jonathans heroic act. — With strong faith and confidence in the might of the Lord, that He could give the victory even through the hands of very few, Jonathan resolved to attack the outpost of the Philistines at the pass of Mukhmas, accompanied by his armour-bearer alone, and the Lord crowned his enterprise with a marvellous victory. — Ver. 1. Jonathan said to his armour-bearer, " We will go over to the post of the Philistines, that is over ihere.^' To these words, which introduce the occurrences that followed, there are attached from "i''3Xp1 to ver. 5 a series of sentences introduced to explain the situation, and the thread of the narrative is resumed in ver. 6 by a re- petition of Jonathan's words. It is first of all observed that Jonathan did not disclose his intentions to his father, who would hardly have approved of so daring an enterprise. Then follows a description of the place where Saul was stationed with the six hundred men, viz. "at the end of Gibeah (i.e. the extreme northern end), under the pomegranate-tree (Bimmon) which is hy Migron" Rimmon is not the rock Kimmon (Judg. XX. 45), which was on the north-east of Michmash, but is an appellative noun, signifying a pomegranate-tree. Migron is a locality with which we are not acquainted, upon the north side of Gibeah, and a different place from the Migron which was on the north or north-west of Michmash (Isa. x. 28). Gibeah {Tuleil el Phut) was an hour and a quarter from Geba, and from the pass which led across to Michmash. Consequently, when Saul was encamped with his six hundred men on the north of Gibeah, he may have been hardly an hour's journey from Geba. — Ver. 3. Along with Saul and his six hundred men, there was also Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, the (elder) brother of Ichabod, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest at Shiloh, and therefore a great-grandson of Eli, wearing the ephod, i.e. in the high priest's robes. Ahiah is generally CHAP. XIV. 1-15. 137 supposed to be the same person as AJdmelech, the son of Ahitub (cli. xxii. 9 sqq.), in which case Ahiah (i^'H^? brotlier, i.e. friend of Jehovah) would be only another form of the name Ahimelecli (i.e. brother or friend of the King, viz. Jehovah). This is very probable, although Ahimelech might have been Ahiah's brother, who succeeded him in the office of high priest on account of his having died without sons, since there is an interval of at least ten years between the events related in this chapter and those referred to in ch. xxii. Ahimelech was afterwards slain by Saul along with the priests of Nob (ch. xxii. 9 sqq.) ; the only one who escaped being his son Abiathar, who fled to David and, according to ch. xxx. 7, was invested with the ephod. It follows, therefore, that Ahiah (or Ahimelech) must have had a son at least ten years old at the time of the war referred to here, viz. the Abiathar mentioned in ch. xxx. 7, and must have been thirty or thirty-five years old himself, since Saul had reigned at least twenty-two years, and Abiathar had become high priest a few years before the death of Saul. These assumptions may be very easily reconciled with the passage before us. As Eli was ninety-eight years old when he died, his son Phinehas, who had been killed in battle a short time before, might have been sixty or sixty-five years old, and have left a son of forty years of age, namely Ahitub. Forty years later, therefore, i.e. at the beginning of Saul's reign, Ahitub's son Ahiah (Ahimelech) might have been about fifty years old ; and at the death of Ahimelech, which took place ten or twelve years after that, his son Abiathar might have been as much as thirty years of age, and have succeeded his father in the office of high priest. But Abiathar cannot have been older than this when his father died, since he was high priest during the whole of David's forty years' reign, until Solomon deposed him soon after he ascended the throne (1 Kings ii. 26 sqq.). Compare with this the remarks on 2 Sam. viii. 17. Jonathan had also refrained from telling the people anything about his intentions, so that they did not know that he had gone. In vers. 4, 5, the locality is more minutely described. Between the passes, through which Jonathan endeavoured to cross over to go up to the post of the Philistines, there was a sharp rock on this side, and also one upon the other. One of these was called Bozez, the other Seneh ; one (formed) a 138 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. pillar (P''^*^), i-ß- ^ steep height towards the north opposite to Michmash, the other towards the south opposite to Geba. The expression " heticeen the passes " may be explained from the remark of Robinson quoted above, viz. that at the point where he passed the Wady Suweinit, side wadys enter it from the south-west and north-west. These side wadys supply so many different crossings. Between them, however, on the north and south walls of the deep valley, were the jagged rocks Bozez and Seneh, which rose up like pillars to a great height. These were probably the "hills" which Robinson saw to the left of the pass by which he crossed : " Two hills of a conical or rather spherical form, having steep rocky sides, with small wadys run- ning up behind so as almost to isolate them. One is on the side towards Jeba, and the other towards Mukhmas " (Pal. ii. p. 116). — Ver. 6. And Jonathan said to his armour-bearer, " Come, loe ivill go over to the post of these uncircumcisecl; it may he that Jehovah will xoorh for us ; for (there is) 7io hindrance for Jehovah to loork salvation hy many or fewT Jonathan's resolution arose from the strong conviction that Israel was the nation of God, and possessed in Jehovah an omnipotent God, who would not refuse His help to His people in their conflict with the foes of His kingdom, if they would only put their whole trust in Him. — Ver. 7. As the armour-bearer approved of Jonathan's resolution (^ nt33, turn t]nther\ and was ready to follow him, Jonathan fixed upon a sign by which he would ascertain whether the Lord would prosper his undertaking. — Vers. 8 sqq. " Behold, we go over to the j^ßople and show our- selves to them. If they say to us, Wait (iß'l, keep quiet) till we come to you, ive will stand still in our place, and not go up to them ; but if they say thus, Come up unto us, then ive will go up, for Jehovah hath (in that case) delivered them into our hand." The sign was well chosen. If the Philistines said, " Wait till we come," they would show some courage; but if they said, " Come up to us," it would be a sign that they were cowardly, and had not courage enough to leave their position and attack the Hebrews. It was not tempting God for Jonathan to fix upon such a sign by which to determine the success of his enterprise; for he did it in the exercise of his calling, when fighting not for personal objects, but for the kingdom of God, which the uncircumcised were threatening to annihilate, and in CHAP. XIV. 1-15. 139 the most confident belief that the Lord would deliver and pre- serve His people. Such faith as this God would not put tt shame. — Vers. 11 sqq. .When the two showed themselves to the garrison of the Philistines, they said, "Behold, Hebrews come forth out of the holes in lohich they have hidden themselves." And the men of the garrison cried out to Jonathan and his armour- bearer, " Come up to us, and we loill tell you a loord," i.e. we will communicate something to you. This was ridicule at the daring of the two men, whilst for all that they had not courage enough to meet them bravely and drive them back. In this Jonathan received the desired sign that the Lord had given the Phili- stines into the hand of the Israelites : he therefore clambered up the rock on his hands and feet, and his armour-bearer after him; and "they (the Philistines) /e^Z before Jonathan" i.e. were smitten down by him, " and his armour-bearer was slaying be- hind him." — Ver. 14. The first stroke that Jonathan and his armour-bearer struck was (amounted to) about twenty men " on about half a furrow of an acre of field." "^^^^j ß furrow, as in Ps. cxxix. 3, is in the absolute state instead of the construct, because several nouns follow in the construct state (cf. Ewald, § 291, a), ^ipv, lit. things bound together, then a pair ; here it signifies a pair or yoke of oxen, but in the transferred sense of a piece of land that could be ploughed in one morning with a yoke of oxen, like the Latin jiigum, jugerum. It is called the furrow of an acre of land, because the length only of half an acre of land was to be given, and not the breadth or the entire circumference. The Philistines, that is to say, took to flight in alarm as soon as the brave heroes really ascended, so that the twenty men were smitten one after another in the distance of half a rood of land. Their terror and flight are perfectly con- ceivable, if we consider that the outpost of the Philistines was so stationed upon the top of the ridge of the steep mountain wall, that they could not see how many were following, and the Philistines could not imagine it possible that two Hebrews would have ventured to climb the rock alone and make an attack upon them. Sallust relates a similar occurrence in con- nection with the scaling of a castle in the Numidian war (Bell. Jugurth. c. 89, 90). — Ver. 15. And there arose a terror in the camp upon the field (i.e. in the principal camp) as well as among all the people (of the advanced outpost of the Philistines) ; the 140 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. garrison (i.e. tlie army that was encamped at Miclimash), and the spoilers, tliey also trembled, and the earth quaked, ss. with the noise and tumult of the frightened foe ; " and it grew into a trembling of God,'' i.e. a supernatural terror miraculously infused by God into the Philistines. The subject to the last ""nni is either '"'']"JC1, the alarm in the camp, or all that has been men- tioned before, i.e. the alarm with the noise and tumult that sprang out of it. Vers. 16-23. Flight and defeat of the Philistines. — Ver. 16. The spies of Saul at Gibeah saw how the multitude (in the camp of the Philistines) melted away and was beaten more and more. The words Dpni tip»! are obscure. The Rabbins are unanimous in adopting the explanation tnagis rnagisque frangehatnr, and Lave therefore probably taken Ci?n as an inf. absol. Dv^, and interpreted D?n according to Judg. v. 26. This was also the case with the Chaldee ; and Gesenius {Thes. p. 383) has adopted the same rendering, except that he has taken D?n in the sense of dissolutus, dissipatus est. Others take Di-'H as adverbial (^" and thither"), and supply the correlate QPn (hither), so as to bring out the meaning " hither and thither." Thus the LXX. render it evOev koX evOev, but they have not translated '^l^'l at all. — Ver. 17. Saul conjectured at once that the excitement in the camp of the Philistines was occasioned by an attack made by Israelitish Avarriors, and therefore commanded the people : NJ'HpS, " Muster (number) now, and see ivho has gone away from us;" and '■^Jonathan and his armour-hearer were not there," i.e. they were missing. — Vers. 18 sqq. Saul therefore resolved to ask God, thi'ough the priest Ahiah, what he should do ; whether he should go out with his army against the Philistines or no. But whilst he was talking with the priest, the tumult in the camp of the Philistines became greater and greater, so that he saw from that what ought to be done under the circumstances, and stopped the priest's inquiring of God, and set out with his people without delay. We are struck, however, with the expression in ver. 18, " Bring hither the ark of God" and the explanation which follows, "/or the ark of God was at that time with the children of Israel," inasmuch as the ark was then deposited at Kirjath-jearim, and it is a very improbable thing that it should have been in the little camp of Saul. Moreover, in other cases where the high priest is spoken of as inquiring CHAP. XIV. 16-23. 141 the will of God, there is no mention made of the ark, but only of the ephod, the high priest's shoulder-dress, upon wliich tliere were fastened the Urim and Thummim, through which inquiry was made of God. And in addition to this, the verb riB'''3n is not really applicable to the ark, which was not an object that could be carried about at will ; whereas this verb is the current expression used to signify the fetching of the ephod (vid. ch. xxiii. 9, XXX. 7). All these circumstances render the correct- ness of the Masoretic text extremely doubtful, notwithstanding the fact that the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Vulgate support it, and recommend rather the reading adopted by the LXX., Trpocrdyaye to ^E(j)ov8' on avro^ rjpev to 'EcpovS ev rfi I'jfiepa eKeivrj ivcoTnov 'Iapar]\ which Avould give as the Hebrew text, ^sib''' "'js^ xinn Qi>3 niDxn Nb'j t5^n "'s nisxn nti'-ian. In any case, ^^1^'] ''^^^ at the end of the verse should be read 'b>] ''^2? or ''^}}^, since ^ gives no sense at all. — Yer. 19. "It increased more and more : " lit. increasinor and becomincp greater. The subject '1^1 pOi^ni is placed absolutely at the head, so that the verb T|7*l is appended in the form of an apo- dosis. ^T, n"^^5 " draw thy hand in" (back) ; i.e. leave off now. — Ver. 20. "And (i.e. in consequence of the increasing tumult in the enemy's camp) Said had himself, and all the people icith him, called^'' i.e. called together for battle ; and when they came to the war, i.e. to the place of conflict, " behold, there loas the sword of the one against the other, a very great confusion" in consequence partly of terror, and partly of the circumstance alluded to in ver. 21. — Ver. 21. "And the Hebrews were with the Philistines as before (yesterday and the day before yester- day), icho had come along ivith them in the camp round about ; they cdso came over to Israel, ichich xoas loitli Said aiid Jonathan." 2''3D means distributed round about amons the Philistines. Those Israelites whom the Philistines had incorporated into their army are called Hebrews, according to the name which was current among foreigners, whilst those who were with Saul are called Israel, according to the sacred name of the nation. The difficulty which many expositors have found in the word nrnp has been very correctly solved, so far as the sense is con- cerned, by the earlier translators, by the interpolation of "they returned:'' 13n (Chald.), iirearpdi^r^a-av (LXX.), reversi sunt (Vulg.), and similarly the Syriac and Arabic We are not at 142 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. liberty, however, to amend the Hebrew text in this manner, as nothini:^ more is omitted than the finite verb Vn before the infinitive J^i"''"?? (for this construction, see Gesenius, Gramm. § 132, 3, Anm. 1), and this might easily be left out here, since it stands at 'the beo;inning of the verse in the main clause. The literal rendering would be, they were to be with Israel, i.e. they came over to Israel. The* fact that the Hebrews who were serving in the army of the Philistines came over to Saul and his host, and turned their weapons against their oppressors, naturally heightened the confusion in the camp of the Phili- stines, and accelerated their defeat; and this was still further increased by the fact that the Israelites who had concealed themselves on the mountains of Ephraim also joined the Israel- itish army, as soon as they heard of the flight of the Philistines (ver. 22). — Ver. 23. " Thus the Lord helped Israel that day, and the conflict went out beyond Bethaven." Bethaven was on the east of Michmash, and, according to ver. 31, the Philistines fled westwards from Michmash to Ajalon. But if we bear in mind that the camp of the Philistines was on the eastern side of Michmash before Bethaven, according to ch. xiii. 5, and that the Israelites forced their way into it from the south, we shall see that the battle might easily have spread out beyond Bethaven, and that eventually the main body of the enemy might have fled as far as Ajalon, and have been pursued to that point by the victorious Israelites. Vers. 24-31. Saurs precipitate haste. — Ver. 24. The men of Israel loere pressed (i.e. fatigued) on that day, sc. through the military service and fighting. Then Saul adjured the people, saying, " Cursed he the man that eateth bread until the evening, and (till) / have avenged myself upon mine enemies^' ^^'', fut. apoc. of rips'' for n)?S|;, from n^X^ to swear, Hiphil to adjure or require an oath of a person. The people took the oath by saying " amen' to what Saul had uttered. This command of Saul did not proceed from a proper attitude towards the Lord, but was an act of false zeal, in which Saul had more regard to himself and his own kingly power than to the cause of the kingdom of Jehovah, as we may see at once from the expression '131 ''^^i^^, " till / have avenged myself upon mine enemies." It was a despotic measure which not only failed to accomplish its object (see vers. 30, 31), but brought Saul into the unfortunate CHAP. XIV. 31-46. 143 position of being unable to carry out the oath (see ver. 45). All the people kept the command. " They tasted no bread." DJ/ü'xh is not to be connected with ''^^i^^l ^^ ^^ apodosis. — Ver. 25. " And all the land (i.e. all the people of the land who had gathered round Saul : vid. ver. 29) came into the woody country; there ivas honey upon the ßeld." "^V] signifies here a woody dis- trict, in which forests alternated with tracts of arable land and meadows. — Ver. 26. When the people came into the wood and saw a stream of honey (of wild or wood bees), " no one put his hand to his mouth (^sc. to eat of the honey), because they feared the oath." — Ver. 27. But Jonathan, who had not heard his father's oath, dipped (in the heat of pursuit, that he might not have to stop) the point of his staff in the new honey, and put it to his mouth, " ajid his eyes became bright ;" his lost strength, which is reflected in the eye, having been brought back by this invigorating taste. The Chethibh nJNin is probably to be read n3S"irij the eyes became seeing, received their power of vision again. The Masoretes have substituted as the Keri i^^l^^y from "lix, to become bright, according to ver. 29; and this is probably the correct reading, as the letters might easily be transposed. ■ — Vers. 28 sqq. When one of the people told him thereupon of his father's oath, in consequence of which the people were exhausted (pV^ ^P\ belongs to the man's words ; and ^V^\ is the same as in Judg. iv. 21), Jonathan condemned the proliibition. '■^ My father has brought the land (i.e. the people of the land, as in ver. 25) into trouble {^"^V, see at Gen. xxxiv. 30) : see how bright mine eyes have become because I tasted a little of this honey. How much more if the people had eaten to-day of the booty of its enemies, icould not the overthrow among the Phili- stines truly have then become greatV ^3 H^, lit. to this (there comes) also that = not to mention liow much more ; and nny "'S is an emphatic introduction of the apodosis, as in Gen. xxxi. 42, xliii. 10, and other passages, and the apodosis itself is to be taken as a question. Vers. 31-46. Result of the battle, and consequences of SauVs rashness. — Ver. 31. '^ On that day they smote the Philistines from Michmash to Ajalon" which has been preserved in the viHage of Ydlo (see at Josh. xix. 42), and was about three geographical miles to the south-west <\ Michmash; '■^ and the people were very faint" because Saul iiad forbidden them to 144- THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. eat before the evening (ver. 24). — Ver. 32. They therefore ^^fell voraciously upon the bootij^ — (the Chetldhh b'y^l is no doubt merely an error in writing for toy^^, imperf. Kal of tD"'y with Dagesh forte implic. instead of t^yjl^ as we may see from ch. xv. 19, since the meaning required by the context, viz. to fall upon a thing, cannot be established in the case of n^y with ?X. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any necessity to supply the article before ?y^, and this Keri seems only to have been taken from the parallel passage in ch. xv. 19), — " and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground C^^*"!^, lit. to the earth, so that when they were slaughtered the animal fell upon the ground, and remained lying in its blood, and was cut in pieces), and ate upon the blood" (D"nn 7V^ w'ith which D^n 7ii, " li/iiig to the blood," is interchanged in ver. 34), i.e. the flesh along with the blood which adhered to it, by doing which they sinned against the law in Lev. xix. 26. This sin had been occasioned by Saul himself through the prohibition which he issued. — Vers. 33, 34. When this was told to Saul, he said, " Ye act faithlessly towards Jehovah " by transgressing the laws of the covenant ; " roll me now (lit. this day) a large stone. Scatter yourselves among the people, and say to them. Let every one bring his ox and his sheep to me, and slay here " (upon the stone that has been rolled up), viz. so that the blood could run off properly upon the ground, and the flesh be separated from the blood. This the people also did. — Yer. 35. As a thanks- giving for this victory, Saul built an altar to the Lord, ink niJip ?nn^ " he began to build it," i.e. he built this altar at the beginning, or as the first altar. This altar was probably not intended to serve as a place of sacrifice, but simply to be a memorial of the presence of God, or the revelation of God which Saul had received in the marvellous victory. — Ver. 36. After the people had strengthened themselves in the evening with food, Saul wanted to pursue the Philistines still farther during the night, and to plunder among them until the light (i.e. till break of day), and utterly destroy them. The people assented to this proposal, but the priest (Ahiah) wished first of all to obtain the decision of God upon the matter. " We loill draio near to God here" (before the altar which has just been built). — Ver. 37. But when Saul inquired of God (through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest), "Shall T go down CHAP. XIV. 31-46. 145 after the Philistines f wilt Thou deliver them into the hand of Israel ?" God did not answer him. Saul was to perceive from this, that the guilt of some sin was resting upon the people, on account of which the Lord had turned away His countenance, and was withdrawing His help. — Vers. 38, 39. When Saul perceived this, he directed all the heads of the people {j^innoth, as in Judg. xx. 2) to draw near to learn whereby (wherein) the sin had occurred that day, and declared, "As truly as Jehovah liveth, icho has brought salvation to Israel, even if it were upon Jonathan my son, he shall die" The first "'S in ver. 39 is ex- planatory ; the second and third serve to introduce the words, like OTL, quod ; and the repetition serves to give emphasis, lit. " that even if it were upon my son, that he shall die." " A?id of all the people no one ansioered him" from terror at the king's word. — Ver. 4.0. In order to find out the guilt, or rather the culprit, Saul proceeded to the lot; and for this purpose he made all the people stand on one side, whilst he and his son Jonathan ■went to the other, and then solemnly addressed Jehovah thus : " God of Israel, give innocence (of mind, i.e. truth). And the lot fell upon Said and Jonathan ("'??'!, as in ch. x. 20, 21) ; and the people went out," sc. Avithout the lot falling upon them, i.e. they went out free. — Ver. 42. When they proceeded still further to cast lots between Saul and his son (^''"'Bi?, sc. P'ii3 ; cf. 1 Chron. xxvi. 14, Neh. xi. 11, etc.), Jonathan was taken.^ — Vers. 43, ^ In the Alex, version, vers. 41 and 42 are lengthened out with long paraphrases upon the course pursued in casting the lots : x«.' üt^-s 'Zxov'a, Kvpis 6 diog ' laoxtjX ri on ovx, ccTrsKpi'd/]; tu Böi/A«j gov a'/ifiipou ; si tu e/xol «j sw 'lavxSav ru viu f/,ov i] uhiKtoc ; x.vpii 6 6t6; ItrpctYi'h SoV S^Tiot/j' Kctl ioiv rä2s «Vi;, 3oV S^ Tto Xaä! (Tov 'Iff^ss^X, Soj S^ ÖoiÖtyitu, Kcti KT^/ipovTcct '\auä.dot,v x.x\ 2«oi/X, Kx\ 0 A«ö? l^yi'hSi. Ver. 42 : Kaei ilvi SatovA, 'BuKhin dv» /niaou s/nov x,otl »u» fiiaov ^luuxOxuTOV viiv fiov' ÖV oil/ Kxrxx.'KYipaai^TXi Küptog d'Trodxi/irit- Kxl il-TTiu 0 XaoV "Trpog Ixov'K, Oi/x. tort to pijfix zovro. Kxl x.xrix,pxrr,ai '2xoi/7\. Toii y^xov, KXi ßöcXhiivaiv xvx [/.kaau xiirov x.x\ dux fikocu lojuxdxu rov vioZ xi/Tov, axi x.xrxx.'knpovrxi 'luuxSxu. One portion of these additions is also found in the text of our present Vulgate, and reads as follows : Et dixit Saul ad Dominum Deum Israel: Domine Deus Israel, da indicium! quid est quod nan responderis servo tuo hodie? Si in me aut in Jonathaßlio VUG est iniquitas, da oslensionem ; aut si lixc iniquitas est in populo tuo, da sanctitatem. Et deprehensus est Jonathas et Saul, populus autem exiint. The beginning and end of this verse, as well as ver. 42, agree here most accurately with the Hebrew text. But the words from quid est quod to da sanctitatem are interpolated, so that D^OO nan are translated twice ; 146 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 44. When Saul asked him what he had done, Jonatlian con- fessed that he had tasted a little honey (see ver. 27), and resigned himself to the punishment suspended over him, say- ing, ^^ Behold, I shall die;" and Saul pronounced sentence of death upon him, accompanying it with an oath (" God do so" etc.: vid. Ruth i. 17). — Yer. 45. But the people interposed, " Shall Jonathan die, who has achieved this great salvation (victory) in Israel ? God forbid ! As truly as Jehovah liveth, not a hair shall fall from his head upon the ground ; for he hath wrought (the victory) with God to-day." Thus the people delivered Jonathan from death. The objection raised by the people was so conclusive, that Saul was obliged to yield. What Jonathan had done was not wrong in itself, but became so simply on account of the oath with which Saul had first in the words da indicium, and then in the interpolation da ostensionem. This repetition of the same words, and that in different renderings, when taken in connection with the agreement of the Vulgate with the Hebrew text at the beginning and end of the verse, shows clearly enough, that the interpolated clauses did not originate with Jerome, but are simply inserted in his translation from the Itala. The additions of the LXX., in which Txls uTTvi is evidently only a distortion of vi dliKtx, are regarded by Ewald (^Gesell, iii. p. 48) and Thenius as an original portion of the text which has dropped out from the Masoretic text. They therefore infer, that instead of DVOn we ought to read D"'Qn (Thummim), and that we have here the full formula used in connection with the use of the Urim and Thummim, from which it may be seen, that this mode of divine revelation consisted simply in a sacred lot, or in the use of two dice, the one of which was fixed upon at the outset as meaning no, and the other as meaning yes. So much at any rate is indisputable, that the Septuagint translator took D'^Dfl in the sense of thummim, and so assumed that Saul had the guilty person dis- covered by resorting to the Urim and Thummim. But this assumption is also decidedly erroneous, together with all the inferences based upon it. For, in the first place, the verbs p'^Sn and l^^t can be proved to be never used throughout the whole of the Old Testament to signify the use of the Urim and Thummim, and to be nothing more than technical expressions used to denote the casting of a simple lot (see the passages cited above in the text). Moreover, such passages as ch. x. 22, and ii. 5, 23, show most unmistakeably that the divine oracle of the Urim and Thummim did not consist merely in a sacred lot with yes and no, but that God gave such answers through it as could never have been given through the lots. The Septuagint expansions of the text are nothing more, therefore, than a sub- jective and really erroneous interpretation on the part of the translators, •which arose simply from the mistaken idea that D''Dn was thummim^ and which Ls therefore utterly worthless. CHAP. XIV. 31-46. 147 forbidden it. But Jonathan did not hear the oath, and there- fore had not even consciously transgressed. Nevertheless a curse lay upon Israel, which was to be brought to light as a warning for the culprit. Therefore Jehovah had given no reply to Saul. But when the lot, which had the force of a divine verdict, fell upon Jonathan, sentence of death was not thereby pronounced upon him by God ; but it was simply made manifest, that through his transgression of his father's oath, with which he was not acquainted, guilt had been brought upon Israel. The breach of a command issued with a solemn oath, even when it took place unconsciously, excited the wrath of God, as being a profanation of the divine name. But such a sin could only rest as guilt upon the man who had committed, or the man who occasioned it. Now where the command in question was one of God himself, there could be no question, that even in the case of unconscious transgression the sin fell upon the transgressor, and it was necessary that it should either be expiated by him or forgiven him. But where the command of a man had been unconsciously transgressed, the guilt might also fall upon the man who issued the command, that is to say, if he did it without being authorized or empowered by God. In the present instance, Saul had issued the prohibition with- out divine authority, and had made it obligatory upon the people by a solemn oath. The people had conscientiously obeyed the command, but Jonathan had transgressed it without being aware of it. For this Saul was about to punish him with death, in order to keep his oath. But the people opposed it. They not only pronounced Jonathan innocent, because he had broken the king's command unconsciously, but they also exclaimed that he had gained the victory for Israel " with God." In this fact (Jonathan's victory) there was a divine verdict. And Saul could not fail to recognise now, that it was not Jonathan, but he himself, who had sinned, and through his arbitrary and despotic command had brought guilt upon Israel, on account of which God had given him no reply. — Ver. 46. With the feeling of this guilt, Saul gave up any further pursuit of the Philistines: he ^^ went up" (sc. to Gibeah) ^^ from behind the Philistines" i.e. desisting from any further pursuit. But the Philistines went to their place, i.e. back into their own land. 148 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Vers. 47-52. Geneeal Summary of Saul's other Wars, AND Account of his Family. — ^Yer. 47. " But Saul had taken the sovereignty P As Saul had first of all secured a recog- nition of himself as king on the part of all the tribes of Israel^ through his victory over the Ammonites at Jabesh (ch. xi. 12 sqq.), so it was through the victory which he had gained over the PhiUstines, and by which these obstinate foes of Israel were driven back into their own land, that he first acquired the kingship over Israel, i.e. first really secured the regal authority over the Israelites. This is the meaning of n^^psn ^y? : and this O T : - - T - statement is not at variance either with the election of Saul by lot (ch. X. 17 sqq.), or with his confirmation at Gilgal (ch. xi. 14, 15). But as Saul had to fight for the sovereignty, and could only secure it by successful warfare, his other wars are placed in the foreground in the summary account of his reign which follows (vers. 47, 48), whilst the notices concerning his family, which stand at the very beginning in the case of the other kings, are not mentioned till afterwards (vers. 49-51). Saul fought successfully against all the enemies of Israel round about ; against Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, the kings of Zobah, a district of Syria on this side the Euphrates (see at 2 Sam. viii. 3), and against the Philistines. The war against the Ammonites is described in ch. xi. ; but with the Philistines Saul had to wage repeated war all the days of his life (ver. 52). The other wars are none of them more fully described, simply because they were of no importance to the history of the king- dom of God, having neither furnished occasion for any miracu- lous displays of divine omnipotence, nor brought about the subjection of hostile nations to the power of Israel. " Whither- soever he turned, he inßicted 'punishment^ This is the rendering which Luther has very aptly given to T^T. ', for T'V^J} signifies to declare wrong, hence to condemn, more especially as applied to judges : here it denotes sentence or condemnation hy deeds. Saul chastised these nations for their attacks upon Israel. — Ver. 48. " And he acquired potoer;^ ?\^ nb'y (as in Num. xxiv. 18) does not merely signify he proved himself brave, or he formed an army, but denotes the development and unfolding of power in various respects. Here it relates more particularly to the development of strength in the war against Amalek, by virtue of which Saul smote this arch-enemy of Israel, and put an end CHAP. XV 149 to their depredations. This war is described more fully in ch. XV., on account of its consequences in relation to Saul's own sove- reignty.— Vers. 49-51. SauVs family. — Ver. 49. Only three of his sons are mentioned, namely those who fell with him, accord- ing to ch. xxxi. 2, in the war with the Philistines. Jisvi is only another name for Abinadab (ch. xxxi. 2 ; 1 Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39). In these passages in the Chronicles there is a fourth mentioned, Esh-haal, i.e. the one who is called Ish-bosheth in 2 Sam. ii. 8, etc., and who was set up by Abner as the antago- nist of David. The reason why he is not mentioned here it is impossible to determine. It may be that the name has fallen out simply through some mistake in copying : the daughters Michal and Merab are mentioned, with special reference to the occurrence described in ch. xviii. 17 sqq. — ^Vers. 50, 51. Ahner the general was also Saul's cousin. For " soii of Ahiel" [ben Abiel) we must read "sons of AbieV (bneAbiel: see ch. ix. 1). — Ver. 52. The statement, " and the war was hard (severe) against the Philistines as long as Saul lived,'" merely serves to explain the notice which follows, namely, that Saul took or drew to himself every strong man and every brave man that he saw. If we observe this, which is the true relation between the two clauses in this verse, the appearance of abruptness which we find in the first notice completely vanishes, and the verse follows very suitably upon the allusion to the general. The meaning might be expressed in this manner : And as Saul had to carry on a severe war against the Philistines his whole life long, he drew to himself every powerful man and every brave man that he met with. WAB WITH AMALEK. SAUL's DISOBEDIENCE AND REJECTION. — CHAP. XV. As Saul had transgressed the commandment of God which was given to him through Samuel, by the sacrifice which he offered at Gilgal in the war with the Philistines at the very commencement of his reign, and had thereby drawn upon him- self the threat that his monarchy should not be continued in perpetuity (ch. xiii. 13, 14) ; so his disobedience in the war against the Amalekites was followed by his rejection on the part of God. The Amalekites were the first heathen nation to 150 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. attack the Israelites after their deliverance out of Egypt, which they did in the most treacherous manner on their journey from Egypt to Sinai ; and they had been threatened by God with extermination in consequence. This Moses enjoined upon Joshua, and also committed to writing, for the Israelites to observe in all future generations (Ex. xvii. 8-16). As the Amalekites afterwards manifested the same hostility to the people of God which they had displayed in this first attack, on every occasion which appeared favourable to their ravages, the Lord instructed Samuel to issue the command to Saul, to wage war against Amalek, and to smite man and beast with the ban, i.e. to put all to death (vers. 1-3). But when Saul had smitten them, he not only left Agag the king alive, but spared the best of the cattle that he had taken as booty, and merely executed the ban upon such animals as were worthless (vers. 4-9). He was rejected by the Lord for this disobedience, so that he was to be no longer king over Israel. His rejection was announced to him by Samuel (vers. 10-23), and was not retracted in spite of his prayer for the forgiveness of his sin (vers. 24-35). In fact, Saul had no excuse for this breach of the divine com- mand ; it was nothing but open rebellion against the sovereignty of God in Israel ; and if Jehovah would continue King of Israel, He must punish it by the rejection of the rebel. For Saul no longer desired to be the medium of the sovereignty of Jehovah, or the executor of the commands of the God-king, but simply wanted to reign according to his own arbitrary will. Never- theless this rejection was not followed by his outward deposi- tion. The Lord merely took away His Spirit, had David anointed king by Samuel, and thenceforward so directed the steps of Saul and David, that as time advanced the hearts of the people were turned away more and more from Saul to David ; and on the death of Saul, the attempt of the ambi- tious Abner to raise his son Ishbosheth to the throne could not possibly have any lasting success. Vers. 1-3. The account of the war against the Amalekites is a very condensed one, and is restricted to a description of the conduct of Saul on that occasion. Without mentioning either the time or the immediate occasion of the war, the narrative commences with the command of God which Samuel solemnly communicated to Saul, to go and exterminate that people. CHAP. XV. 4-9. 151 Samuel commenced with the words, " Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to be king over His people, over Israel" in order to show to Saul the obligation which rested upon him to receive In's com- mission as coming from God, and to proceed at once to fulfil it. The allusion to the anointing points back not to ch. xi. 15, but to ch. X. 1. — Ver. 2. " Thus saith the Lord of Zehaoth, I have looked upon ichat Amaleh did to Israel, that it placed itself in his way when he came up out of Egypt'''' (Ex. xvii. 8). Samuel merely mentions this first outbreak of hostility on the part of Amalek towards the people of Israel, because in this the same disposition was already manifested which now made the people ripe for the judgment of extermination {vid. Ex. xvii. 14). The hostility which they had now displayed, according to ver. 33, there was no necessity for the prophet to mention particularly, since it was well known to Saul and all Israel. When God looks upon a sin, directs His glance towards it, He must punish it according to His own holiness. This Wi?Q points at the very outset to the punishment about to be proclaimed. — Ver. 3. Saul is to smite and ban everything belonging to it without reserve, i.e. to put to death both man and beast. The last clause '1J1 nriDn"! is only an explanation and exemplification of '131 Driö"inni. " From man to woman" etc., i.e. men and women, children and sucklings, etc. Vers. 4-9. Saul summoned the people to war, and mustered them (those who Avere summoned) at Telaim (this was probably the same place as the Telem mentioned in Josh. xv. 24, and is to be looked for in the eastern portion of the Negeb). " Tico hundred thousand foot, and ten thousand of the men of Judah :" this implies that the two hundred thousand were from the other tribes. These numbers are not too large ; for a powerful Bedouin nation, such as the Amalekites were, could not possibly be successfully attacked with a small army, but only by raising the whole of the military force of Israel. — Ver. 5. He then advanced as far as the city of the Amalekites, the situation of which is altogether unknown, and placed an ambush in the. valley. 3"i*1 does not come from 3''"!, to fight, i.e. to quarrel, not to give battle, but was understood even by the early translators as a contracted form of ^IX'"), the Iliplnl of nnx. And modern commentators have generally understood it in the same way ; but Olshausen {Hehr. Gramm, p. 572) questions the correctness 152 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. of the reading, and Thenius proposes to alter ^n33 3T1, into riDH^p ^^J!!!. ^05 refers to a valley in the neighbourhood of tho city of the Amalekites. — Ver. 6. Saul directed the Kenites to come out from among the Amalekites, that they might not perish with them C^^pX^ imp. Kal of ^DS), as they had showai affection to the Israelites on their journey out of Egypt (com- pare Num. X. 29 with Judg. i. 16). He then smote the Ama- lekites from Havilah in the direction towards Shur, which lay before (to the east of) Egypt (cf. Gen. xxv. 18). Shur is the desert of Jifar, i.e. that portion of the desert of Arabia which borders upon Egypt (see at Gen. xvi. 7). Havilah, the country of the Chaidotißans, on the border of Arabia Petraea towards Yemen (see at Gen. x. 29). — Vers. 8, 9. Their king, Agag, he took alive (on the name, see at Num. xxiv. 7), but all the people he banned with the edge of the sword, i.e. he had them put to death without quarter. "All" i.e. all that fell into the hands of the Israelites. For it follows from the very nature of the case that many escaped, and consequently there is nothing striking in the fact that Amalekites are mentioned again at a later period (ch. xxvii. 8, xxx. 1 ; 2 Sam. viii. 12). The last remnant was destroyed by the Simeonites upon the mountains of Seir in the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chron. iv. 43). Only, king Agag did Saul and the people (of Israel) spare, also " the best of the sheep and oxen, and the animals of the second birth, and the lambs and everything good; these they would not ban." ^''^^'Pj according to D. Kimchi and R. Tanch., are )Ü3P D''''3ti^, i.e. animalia secundo partu edita, which were considered superior to the others {vid. Roediger in Ges. Thes. p. 1451) ; and D^">3, pasture lambs, i.e. fat lambs. There is no necessity, therefore, for the conjecture of Ewald and Thenius, D''IiOK''o, fattened, and D''0"]3, vineyards ; nor for the far-fetched explanation given by Bochart, viz. camels with two humps and camel-saddles, to say nothing of the fact that camel-saddles and vineyards are alto- gether out of place here. In ^^ all that loas good" the things already mentioned singly are all included. naspSHj the property; here it is applied to cattle, as in Gen. xxxiii. 14. nTa03 = nD3, despised, undervalued. The form of the word is not con- tracted from a noun nnp and the participle nD3 (^Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 463), but seems to be a participle Niph. formed from a noun <^^^^. But as such a form is contrary to all analogy, Ewald CHAP. XV. 10-23. 153 and Olshausen regard the reading as corrupt. DDJ (from DDO): flowing away ; used with reference to diseased cattle, or such as have perished. The reason for sparing the best cattle is very apparent, namely selfishness. But it is not so easy to determine why Agag should have been spared by Saul. It is by no means probable that he wished thereby to do honour to the royal dignity. O. v. Gerlach's supposition, that vanity or the desire to make a display with a royal slave was the actual reason, is a much more probable one. Vers. 10-23. The word of the Lord came to Samuel : " It repenteth me that I have made Saul king, for he hath turned away from me, and not set up (carried out) my word.'" (On the repentance of God, see the remarks on Gen. vi. 6.) That this does not express any changeableness in the divine nature, but simply the sorrow of the divine love at the rebellion of sinners, is evident enough from ver. 29. ""^ '""?.['.'?!? ^''^j to turn round from following God, in order to go his own ways. This was Saul's real sin. He would no longer be the follower and servant of the Lord, but would be absolute ruler in Israel. Pride arising from the consciousness of his own strength, led him astray to break the command of God. What more God said to Samuel is not communicated here, because it could easily be gathered and supplied from what Samuel himself proceeded to do (see more particularly vers. 16 sqq.). In order to avoid repetitions, only the principal feature in the divine revelation is mentioned here, and the details are given fully afterwards in the account of the fulfilment of the instructions. Samuel was deeply agitated by this word of the Lord. " It burned (in) him,'' sc. wrath (^1^*, compare Gen. xxxi. 36 with xxx. 2), not on account of the repentance to which God had given utterance at having raised up Saul as king, nor merely at Saul's disobedience, but at the frustration of the purpose of God in calling him to be king in consequence of his disobedience, from which he might justly dread the w^orst results in relation to the glory of Jehovah and his own prophetic labours.^ The opinion ^ " Many grave thoughts seem to have presented themselves at once to Samuel and disturbed his mind, when he reflected upon the dishonour ■which might be heaped upon the name of God, and the occasion which the rejection and deposition of Saul would furnish to wicked men for blasphem- iug God. For Saul had been anointed by the ministry of Samuel, and ha 154 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. that ^ "in^ is also nsed to signify deep distress cannot be estab- lished from 2 Sara. iv. 8. " And he cried to Jehovah the whole night" sc. praying for Saul to be forgiven. But it was in vain. This is evident from what follows, where Samuel maintains the cause of his God with strenijth and decision, after havinj:r wrestled with God in prayer. — Ver. 12. The next morning, after receiving the revelation from God (ver. 11), Samuel rose up early, to go and meet Saul as he was returning from the war. On tlie way it was told him, " Saul has come to Carmel" — i.e. Kurmul, upon the mountains of Judah to the south-east of Hebron (see at Josh. xv. 55) — " setting himself a memoriaV^ (1^, a hand, then a memorial or monument, inasmuch as the hand calls attention to anything : see 2 Sam. xviii. 18), " and has turned and proceeded farther, and gone down to Gilgal" (in the valley of the Jordan, as in ch. xiii. 4). — Ver. 13. When Samuel met him there, Saul attempted to hide his consciousness of guilt by a feigned friendly welcome. '^Blessed be thou of the Lord" (vid. Ruth ii. 20, Gen. xiv. 19, etc=) was his greeting to the prophet ; " / have set up the word of Jehovah." — Vers. 14, 15. But the prophet stripped his hypocrisy at once with the question, " What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears, and a lowing of oxen that I hear V^ Saul replied (ver. 15), " They have brought them from the Amalelcites, because the people spared the best sheep and oxen, to sacrifice them to the Lord thy God ; and the rest loe have banned." So that it was not Saul, but the people, who had transgressed the command of the Lord, and that with the most laudable intention, viz. to offer the best of the cattle that had been taken, as a thank-offering to the Lord. The falsehood and hypocrisy of these words lay upon the very surface ; for even if the cattle spared were really intended as sacrifices to the Lord, not only the people, but Saul also, would have had their own interests in view (^vid. ver. 9), since the flesh of thank- offerings was appropriated to sacrificial meals. — Vers. 16 sqq. had been chosen by God himself from all the people, and called by Him t«, the throne. If, therefore, he was nevertheless deposed, it seemed likely that so much would be detracted from the authority of Samuel and the confidence of the people in his teaching, and, moreover, that the worship of God would be overturned, and the greatest disturbance ensue ; in fact, that universal confusion would burst upon the nation. These were probably the grounds unon which Samuel's great indignation rested." — Calvin. I CHAP. XV. 10-23. 155 Samuel therefore bade him be silent. ^"^J], " leave q^'," excusing thyself any further. " I ivill tell thee what Jelwvah hath said to me this night^ (The Chethibh 1"iOX'1 is evidently a copyist's error for "ipx'l.) " Is it not true, ivhen thou toast little in thine eyes (a reference to Saul's own words, ch. ix. 21), thou didst become head of the tribes of Israel ? and Jehovah anointed thee king over Israel, and Jehovah sent thee on the iüo.y, and said, Go and ban the sinners, the Amalehites, and maJce ivar against them, until thou exterminatest them. And wherefore hast thou not hearkened to the voice of Jehovah, and hast fallen upon the booty," etc. ? C^V^, see at ch. xiv. 32.) Even after this Saul wanted to justify himself, and to throw the blame of sparing the cattle upon the people. — Yer. 20. " Yea, I have hearkened to the voice of Jehovah C^^^. serving, like "'S, to introduce the reply : here it is used in the sense of asseveration, utiqiie, yea), and have brought Agag the king of the Amalekites, and banned Amalek." Bringing Agag he mentioned probably as a practical proof that he had carried out the war of extermination against the Amalekites. — Ver. 21. Even the sparing of the cattle he endeavoured to defend as the fulfilment of a religious duty. The people had taken sheep and oxen from the booty, " as firstlings of the ban," to sacrifice to Jehovah. Sacrificing the best of the booty taken in war as an offering of first-fruits to the Lord, -was not indeed prescribed in the law, but was a praiseworthy sign of piety, by which all honour was rendered to the Lord as the giver of the victory (see Num. xxxi. 48 sqq.). This, Saul meant to say, was what the people had done on the present occasion ; only he overlooked the fact, that what was banned to the Lord could not be offered to Him as a burnt-offering, because, being most holy, it belonged to Him already (Lev. xxvii. 29), and according to Deut. xiii. 16, was to be put to death, as Samuel had expressly said to Saul (ver. 3). — Vers. 22, 23. Without entering, therefore, into any discussion of the meaning of the ban, as Saul only wanted to cover over his own wrong-doings by giving this turn to the affair, Sanmel put a stop to any further excuses, by saying, '^ Hath Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah ? (i.e. in obedience to His word.) Behold, hearing (obeying) is better than slain-offeringa, attending better than fat of rams.'" By saying this, Samuel did 156 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. not reject sacrifices as worthless ; he did not say that God took no pleasure in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings, but simply compared sacrifice with obedience to the command of God, and pronounced the latter of greater worth than the former. " It was as much as to say that the sum and substance of divine worship consisted in obedience, with which it should always begin, and that sacrifices were, so to speak, simple appendices, the force and worth of which were not so great as of obedience to the precepts of God" (Calvin). But it necessarily follows that sacrifices without obedience to the commandments of God are utterly worthless ; in fact, are displeasing to God, as Ps. 1. 8 sqq., Isa. i. 11 sqq., Ixvi. 3, Jer. vi. 20, and all the prophets, distinctly affirm. There was no necessity, however, to carry out this truth any further. To tear off the cloak of hypocrisy, with which Saul hoped to cover his disobedience, it was quite enouo-h to afiirm that God's first demand was obedience, and that observing His word was better than sacrifice ; because, as the Berleh. Bible puts it, " in sacrifices a man offers only the strange flesh of irrational animals, whereas in obedience he offers his own will, which is rational or spiritual worship " (E,om. xii. 8). This spiritual worship was shadowed forth in the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament. In the sacrificial animal the Israelite was to give up and sanctify his own person and life to the Lord. (For an examination of the meaning of the diffei-ent sacrifices, see Pent. vol. ii. pp. 274 sqq., and Keil's Bibl. Archäol. i. § 41 sqq.) But if this were the design of the sacrifices, it was clear enough that God did not desire the animal sacrifice in itself, but first and chiefly obedience to His own word. In ver. 22, 2itD is not to be connected as an ad- jective with n3T, " more than good sacrifice," as the Sept. and Thenius render it ; it is rather to be taken as a predicate, " better than slain-offerings" and nn;n3 is placed first simply for the sake of emphasis. Any contrast between good and bad sacrifices, such as the former construction would introduce into the words, is not only foreign to the context, but also opposed to the parallelism. For ^Y^ ^?n does not mean fat rams, but the fat of rams ; the fat portions taken from the ram, which were placed upon the altar in the case of the slain-offerings, and for which npn is the technical expression (compare Lev. iii. 9, 16, with vers. 4, 11, etc.). " For" continued Samuel (ver. 23), CHAP. XV. 24-35, 157 " rebellion is the sin of soothsaying, and opposition is heathenism and idolatry." "'10 and "iVSn are the subjects, and synonymous in their meaning. DDj? riNisrij the sin of soothsaying, i.e. of divination in connection with the worship of idolatrous and demoniacal powers. In the second clause idols are mentioned instead of idolatry, and compared to resistance, but without any particle of comparison. Opposition is keeping idols and teraphim, i.e. it is like worshipping idols and teraphim. \)j^, nothingness, then an idol or image {yid. Isa. Ixvi. 3 ; Hos. iv. 15, X. 5, 8). On the teraphim as domestic and oracular deities, see at Gen. xxxi. 19. Opposition to God is compared by Samuel to soothsaying and oracles, because idolatry was mani- fested in both of them. All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God. " Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He hath rejected thee, that thou mayst he no longer king." "qPop = '?]!'p nvno (ver. 26), away from being king. Vers. 24-35. This sentence made so powerful an impression upon Saul, that he confessed, " / have sinned : for I have trans- gressed the command of the Lord and thy loords, because I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice." But these last words, with which he endeavoured to make his sin appear as small as possible, show that the consciousness of his guilt did not go very deep. Even if the people had really desired that the best of the cattle should be spared, he ought not as king to have given his consent to their wish, since God had commanded that they should all be banned (i.e. destroyed) ; and even though he had yielded from weakness, this weakness could not lessen his guilt before God. This repentance, therefore, was rather the effect of alarm at the rejection which had been announced to him, than the fruit of any genuine consciousness of sin. " It was not true and serious repentance, or the result of genuine sorrow of heart because he had offended God, but was merely repentance of the lips arising from fear of losing the kingdom, and of incurring public disgrace" (C. v. Lapide). This is apparent even from ver. 25, but still more from ver. 30. In ver. 25 he not only entreats Samuel for the forgiveness of his sin, but says, " Return with me, tJiat I may pray to the Lord" 158 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. The y\l^ presupposes that Samuel was about to go away after ■executing his commission. Saul entreated him to remain that he might pray, i.e. not only in order to obtain for him the for- giveness of his sin through his intercession, but, according to ver. 30, to show him honour before the elders of the people and before. Israel, that his rejection might not be known. — Vers. 2Q, 27. This request Sanmel refused, repeating at the same time the sentence of rejection, and turned to depart. " 7'hen Saul laid Jiold of the lappet of his mantle (i.e. his upper gar- ment), and it tore'^ {lit. was torn off). That the Niphal J'']ij''l is correct, and is not to be altered into i^nx y}ip.'1, " Saul tore off the lappet," according to the rendering of the LXX,, as Thenius supposes, is evident from the explanation which Samuel gave of the occurrence (ver. 28) : " Jehovah hath torn the sovereignty of Israel from thee to-day, and given it to thy neighbour, lolio is better than thou." As Saul was about to hold back the prophet by force, that he might obtain from him a revocation of the divine sentence, the tearing of the mantle, which took place accidentally, and evidently without any such intention on the part of Saul, was to serve as a sign of the rending away of the sovereignty from him. Samuel did not yet know to whom Jehovah would give it; he therefore used the expression "^P^/, as y2 is applied to any one with whom a J)erson associates. To confirm his own words, he adds in ver. 29 : " And also the Trust of Israel doth not lie and doth not 7'epent, for He is not a man to repent." n^? signifies constancy, endurance, then confi- dence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant. This meaning is to be retained hei'e, where the word is used as a name for God, and not the meaning gloria, which is taken in 1 Chron. xxix. 11 from the Aramaean usage of speech, and would be altogether unsuitable here, where the context suggests the idea of unchangeableness. For a man's repentance or regret arises from his changeableness, from the fluctuations in his desires and actions. This is never the case with God; consequently He is ^^y-^\ ^V?., the unchangeable One, in whom, Israel can trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or repent of His purposes. These words are spoken OeoTrpeTrco'i (theomorphi- cally), whereas in ver. 11 and other passages, which speak of God as repenting, the words are to be understood ävöpcoTro- iraOoi'i (anthropomorphically ; cf. Num. xxiii. 19). — Vers. 30, CHAP. XV. 24-35. 159 31. After tills declaration as to the irrevocable character of the determination of God to reject Saul, Samuel yielded to the renewed entreaty of Saul, that he would honour him by his presence before the elders and the people, and remained whilst Saul worshipped, not merely " for the purpose of preserving the outward order nntil a new king should take his place" (O. V. Gerlach), but also to carry out the ban upon Agag, whom Saul had spared. — Ver. 32. After Saul had prayed, Samuel directed him to bring Agag the king of the Amalekites. Agag came nänyo, i.e. in a contented and joyous state of mind, and said (in his heart), " Surely the hitterness of death is vanished" not from any special pleasure at the thought of death, or from a heroic contempt of death, but because he thought that his life was to be granted him, as he had not been put to death at once, and was now about to be presented to the prophet (Cleri- cus). — Ver. 33. But Samuel pronounced the sentence of death upon him : "^.s thy sivord hath made loomen childless, so he thy vwther childless before women ! " D"'Ci'30 is to be understood as a comparative : more childless than (other) women, i.e. the most childless of women, namel}^, because her son was the king. From these words of Samuel, it is very evident that Agag had carried on his wars with great cruelty, and had therefore for- feited his life according to the lex talionis. Samuel then hewed him in pieces " before the Lord at Gilgal" i.e. before the altar of Jehovah there ; for the slaying of Agag being the execution of the ban, was an act performed for the glory of God. — Vers. 34, 35. After the prophet had thus maintained the rights of Jehovah in the presence of Saul, and carried out the ban upon Agag, he returned to his own home at Eamah ; and Saul went to his house at Gibeah. From that time forward Samuel broke off all intercourse with the king whom Jehovah had rejected. " For Samuel loas grieved for Saul, and it repented the Lord that he had made Said king^^ i.e. because Samuel had loved Saul on accomit of his previous election ; and yet, as Jehovah had rejected him unconditionally, he felt that he was precluded from doing anything to effect a change of heart in Saul, and his reinstatement as king. 160 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. III. SAUL'S FALL AND DAVID'S ELECTION. Chap, xvi.-xxxi. Although the rejection of Saul on the part of God, which was announced to him hy Samuel, was not followed hy imme- diate deposition, but Saul remained king until his death, the consequences of his rejection were very speedily brought to light. Whilst Samuel, by the command of God, was secretly anointing David, the youngest son of Jesse, at Bethlehem, as king (ch. xvi. 1-13), the Spirit of Jehovah departed from Saul, and an evil spirit began to terrify him, so that he fell into melancholy ; and his servants fetched David to the court, as a man who could play on stringed instruments, that he might charm away the king's melancholy by his playing (ch. xvi. 14-23). Another war with the Phihstines soon furnished David with the opportunity for displaying his heroic courage, by the defeat of the giant Goliath, before whom the whole army of the Israelites trembled ; and to attract the eyes of the whole nation to himself, as the deliverer of Israel from its foes (ch. xvii. 1-54), in consequence of which Saul placed him above the men of war, whilst Saul's brave son Jonathan formed a bond of friendship with him (ch. xvii. 55-xviii. 5). But this victory, in commemorating which the women sang, " Saul hath slain a thousand, David ten thousand" (ch. xviii. 7), excited the jealousy of the melancholy king, so that the next day, in an attack of madness, he threw his spear at David, who was playing before him, and after that not only removed him from his presence, but by elevating him to the rank of chief captain, and by the promise to give him his daughter in marriage for the performance of brave deeds, endeavoured to entangle him in such conflicts with the Philistines as should cost him his life. And Avhen this failed, and David prospered in all his under- takings, he began to be afraid of him, and cherished a lifelong hatred towards him (ch. xviii. 6-30). Jonathan did indeed try to intercede and allay his father's suspicions, and effect a recon- ciliation between Saul and David ; but the evil spirit soon drove the jealous king to a fresh attack upon David's life, so that he was obliged to flee not only from the presence of Saul, CHAP. XVI -XXXI. 161 but from his own house also, and went to Ramah, to the prophet Samuel, whither, however, Saul soon followed him, though he was so overpowered by the Spirit of the prophets, that he could not do anything to David (ch. xix.). Another attempt on the part of Jonathan to change his father's mind entirely failed, and so excited the wrath of Saul, that he actually threw the spear at his own son ; so that no other course now remained for David, than to separate himself from his noble friend Jonathan, and seek safety in flight (ch. xx.). He therefore fled with his attendant first of all to Nob, where Ahimelech the high priest gave him some of the holy loaves and the sword of Goliath, on his representing to him that he was travelling hastily in the affairs of the king. He then proceeded to Achish, the king of the Philistines, at Gath ; but having been recog- nised as the conqueror of Goliath, he was obliged to feign madness in order to save his life ; and being driven away by Achish as a madman, he went to the cave of Adullam, and thence into the land of Moab. But he was summoned by the prophet to return to his own land, and went into the wood Hareth, in the land of Judah ; whilst Saul, who had been informed by the Edomite Doeg of the occurrence at Nob, ordered all the priests who were there to be put to death, and the town itself to be ruthlessly destroyed, with all the men and beasts that it contained. Only one of Ahimelech's sons escaped the massacre, viz. Abiathar ; and he took refuge with David (ch. xxi. xxii.). Saul now commenced a regular pursuit of David, who had gradually collected around him a company of 600 men. On receiving intelligence that David had smitten a marauding company of Philistines at Keilah, Saul followed him, with the hope of catching him in this fortified town ; and when this plan failed, on account of the flight of David into the wilderness of Ziph, because the high priest had informed him of the intention of the inhabitants to deliver him up, Saul pursued him thither, and had actually surrounded David with his warriors, when a messenger arrived with the intelli- gence of an invasion of the land by the Philistines, and he was suddenly called away to make war upon these foes (ch. xxiii.). But he had no sooner returned from the attack upon the Philistines, than he pursued David still farther into the wilderness of Engedi, where he entered into a large cave, L i^ «^ 162 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. behind which David and his men were concealed, so that he actually fell Into David's hands, who might have put him to death. But from reverence for the anointed of the Lord, instead of doing him any harm, David merely cut off a corner of his coat, to show his pursuer, when he had left the cave, in what- manner he had acted towards him, and to convince him of the injustice of his hostility. Saul was indeed moved to tears ; but he was not disposed for all that to give up any further pursuit (ch. xxiv.). David was still obliged to wander about from place to place In the wilderness of Judah ; and at length he was actually in want of the necessaries of life, so that on one occasion, when the rich Nabal had churlishly turned away the messengers who had been sent to him to ask for a present, he formed the resolution to take bloody revenge upon this hard-hearted fool, and was only restrained from carrying the resolution out by the timely and friendly intervention of the wise Abigail (ch. xxv.). Soon after this Saul came a second time into such a situation, that David could have killed him ; but during the night, whilst Saul and all his people were sleeping, he slipped with Ablshai into the camp of his enemy, and carried off as booty the spear that was at the king's head, that he might show him a second time how very far he was 'V from seeking to take his life (ch. xxvl.). But all this only made David's situation an Increasingly desperate one ; so that eventually, In order to save his life, he resolved to fly into the country of the Philistines, and take refuge with Achish, the king of Gath, by whom he was now received in the most friendly manner, as a fugitive who had been proscribed by the king of Israel. At his request Achish assigned him the town of Ziklag as a dwelling-place for himself and his men, whence he made sundry excursions against different Bedouin tribes of the desert. In consequence of this, however, he was brought into \/a state of dependence upon this Philistian prince (ch. xxvii.) ; !uv' H '^'^nd shortly afterwards, when the Philistines made an attack upon the Israelites, he would have been perfectly unable to escape the necessity of fighting In their ranks against his own people and fatherland. If the other princes of the Philistines had not felt some mistrust of " these Hebrews," and compelled Achish to send David and his fighting men back to Ziklag (ch. xxix.). But this was also to put an end to his prolonged flight. CHAP. XVI.-XXXI. 163 Saul's fear of the power of the Phihstines, and the fact that he could not obtain any revelation from God, induced him to have recourse to a necromantist woman, and he was obliged to hear from tlie mouth of Samuel, whom she had invoked, not only tlie confirmation of his own rejection on the part of God, but also the announcement of his death (ch. xxviii.). In the battle which followed on the mountains of Gilboa, after his three sons had been put to death by his side, he fell upon his own sword, that he might not fall alive into the hands of the archers of the en em}', who were hotly pursuing him (ch. xxxi.), whilst David in the meantime chastised the Amalekites for their attack upon Ziklag (ch. xxx.). It is not stated anywhere how long the pursuit of David by Saul continued ; the only notice given is that David dwelt a year and four months in the land of the Philistines (ch. xxvii. 7). If we compare with this the statement in 2 Sam. v. 4, that David was thirty years old when he became king (over Judah), the supposition that he was about twenty years old when Samuel anointed him, and therefore that the interval between Saul's rejection and his death was about ten years, will not be very far from the truth. The events which oc- curred during this interval are described in the most elaborate way, on the one hand because they show how Saul sank deeper and deeper, after the Spirit of God had left him on account of his rebellion against Jehovah, and not only was unable to procure any longer for the people that deliverance which they had expected from the king, but so weakened the power of the throne through the conflict which he carried on against David, whom the Lord had chosen ruler of the nation in his stead, that when he died the Philistines were able to inflict a total defeat upon the Israelites, and occupy a large portion of the land of Israel ; and, on the other hand, because they teach how, after the Lord had anointed David ruler over His people, and had opened the way to the throne through the victory which he gained over Goliath, He humbled him by trouble and want, and trained him up as king after His own heart. On a closer examination of these occurrences, which we have only briefly hinted at, giving their main features merely, we see clearly how, from the very day when Samuel announced to Saul his rejection by God, he hardened himself more and more against 164 THE FIRST ROOK OF SAMUEL. the leadings of divine grace, and continued steadily ripening for the judgment of death. Immediately after this announce- ment an evil spirit took possession of his soul, so that he fell into trouble and melancholy ; and when jealousy towards David was stirred up in his heart, he was seized with fits of raving madness, in which he tried to pierce David with a spear, and thus destroy the man whom he had come to love on account of his musical talent, which had exerted so beneficial an influence upon his mind (ch. xvi. 23, xviii. 10, 11, xix. 9, 10). These attacks of madness gradually gave place to hatred, which de- veloped itself with full consciousness, and to a most deliberately planned hostility, which he concealed at first not only from David but also from all his own attendants, with the hope that he should be able to put an end to David's life through his stratagems, but which he afterwards proclaimed most openly as soon as these plans had failed. When his hostility was first openly declared, his eagerness to seize upon his enemy carried him to such a length that he got into the company of prophets at Ramali, and v.-as so completely overpowered by the Spirit of God dwelling there, that he lay before Samuel for a whole day in a state of prophetic ecstasy (ch. xix. 22 sqq.). But this irresistible power of the Spirit of God over him produced no change of heart. For immediately afterwards, when Jonathan began to intercede for David, Saul threw the spear at his own son (ch. XX. 33), and this time not in an attack of madness or insanity, but in full consciousness ; for we do not read in this instance, as in ch. xviii. xix., that the evil spirit came upon him. He now proceeded to a consistent carrying out of his purpose of murder. He accused his courtiers of having con- spired against him like Jonathan, and formed an alliance with David (ch. xxii. 6 sqq.), and caused the priests at Nob to be murdered in cold blood, and the whole town smitten with the edge of the sword, because Ahimelech had supplied David with bread ; and this he did without paying any attention to the conclusive evidence of his innocence (ch. xxii. 11 sqq.). He then went with 3000 men in pursuit of David ; and even after he had fallen twice into David's hands, and on both occa- sions had been magnanimously spared by him, he did not desist from plotting for his life until he had driven him out of the land ; so that we may clearly see how each fresh proof of tba CHAP. XVI.-XXXI. 165 righteousness of David's cause only increased his hatred, until at length, in the war against the Philistines, he rashly resorted to the godless arts of a necromancer which he himself had formerly prohibited, and eventually put an end to his own life by falling upon his sword. Just as clearly may we discern in the guidance of David, from his anointing by Samuel to the death of Saul, how the Lord, as King of His people, trained him in the school of affliction to be His servant, and led him miraculously on to the goal of his divine calling. Having been lifted up as a young man by his anointing, and by the favour which he had acquired with Saul through his playing upon the harp, and still more by his victory over Goliath, far above the limited circumstances of his previous life, he might very easily have been puffed up in the consciousness of the spiritual gifts and powers conferred upon him, if God had not humbled his heart by want and tribulation. The first outbursts of jealousy on the part of Saul, and his first attempts to get rid of the favourite of the people, only furnished him with the opportunity to distinguish himself still more by brave deeds, and to make his name still dearer to the people (ch. xviii. 30). When, therefore, Saul's hostility was openly displayed, and neither Jonathan's friend- ship nor Samuel's prophetic authority could protect him any longer, he fled to tlie high priest Ahimelech, and from him to king Achish at Gath, and endeavoured to help himself through by resorting to falsehood. He did save himself in this way no doubt, but he brought destruction upon the priests at Nob. And he was very soon to learn how all that he did for his people was rewarded with ingratitude. The inhabitants of Keilah, whom he had rescued from their plunderers, wanted to deliver him up to Saul (ch. xxiii. 5, 12) ; and even the men of his own tribe, the Ziphites, betrayed him twice, so that he was no longer sure of his life even in his own land. But the more this necessarily shook his confidence in his own strength and wisdom, the more clearly did the Lord manifest himself as his faithful Shepherd. After Ahimelech had been put to death, his son Abiathar fled to David with the light and right of the high priest, so that he was now in a position to inquire the will and counsel of God in any difficulty into which he might be brought (ch. xxiii. 6). On two occasions God brought his 166 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. mortal foe Saul into his hand, and David's conduct in botli these cases shows how the deliverance of God which he had hitherto experienced had strengthened his confidence in the Lord, and in the fulfilment of His promises (compare ch. xxiv. with ch. xxvi.). And his gracious preservation from carrying out his purposes of vengeance against Nabal (ch. xxv.) could not fail to strengthen him still more. Nevertheless, when his troubles threatened to continue without intermission, his courage began to sink and his faith to waver, so that he took refuge in the land of the Philistines, M^here, however, his wisdom and cunning brought him into a situation of such difficulty that nothing but the grace and fidelity of his God could possibly extricate him, and out of which he was delivered without any act of his own. In this manner was the divine sentence of rejection fulfilled upon Saul, and the prospect which the anointing of David had set before him, of ascending the throne of Israel, carried out to completion. The account before us of the events which led to this result of the various complications, bears in all respects so thoroughly the stamp of internal truth and trustworthiness, that even modern critics are unanimous in acknowledging the genuine historical character of the bibUcal narrative upon the whole. At the same time, there are some things, such as the supposed irreconcilable discrepancy between ch. xvi. 14-23 and ch. xvii. 55-58, and certain repetitions, such as Saul's throwing the spear at David (ch. xviii. 10 and xix. 9, 10), the treachery of the Ziphites (ch. xxiii. 19 sqq. and xxvi. 1 sqq.), David's sparing Saul (ch. xxiv. 4 sqq. and xxvi. 5 sqq.), which they cannot explain in any other Avay than by the favourite hypo- thesis that we have here divergent accounts, or legendary traditions derived from two different sources that are here woven together ; whereas, as we shall see when we come to the exposition of the chapters in question, not only do the dis- crepancies vanish on a more thorough and minute examination of the matter, but the repetitions are very clearly founded on facts. CHAP. XVI. 1-13. 167 ANOINTING OF DAVID. HIS PLAYING BEFORE SAUL. — CHAr. XVI. After the rejection of Saul, the Lord commanded Samuel the pi'ophet to go to Bethlehem and anoint one of Jesse's sons as king ; and when he went to carry out this commission, He pointed out David, the youngest of eight sons, as the chosen one, whereupon the prophet anointed him (vers. 1-13). Through the overruling providence of God, it came to pass after this, that David was brought to the court of Saul, to play upon the harp, and so cheer up the king, who was troubled with an evil spirit (vers. 14-23). Vers. 1-13. Anointing of David. — Ver. 1. The words in which God summoned Samuel to proceed to the anointing of another king, " How long loilt thou mourn for Saul, icliom I hate rejected^ that he may not he king over Israel?" show that the prophet had not yet been able to reconcile himself to the hidden ways of the Lord ; that he was still afraid that the people and kingdom of God would suffer from the rejection of Saul ; and that he continued to mourn for Saul, not merely from his own personal attachment to the fallen king, but also, or perhaps still more, from anxiety for the welfare of Israel. He was now to put an end to this mourning, and to fill his horn with oil and go to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for the Lord had chosen a king from among his sons. — Ver. 2. But Samuel replied, " How shall I go? If Saul hear it, he will Mil me." This fear on the part of the prophet, who did not generally show himself either hesitating or timid, can only be explained, as we may see from ver. 14, on the supposition that Saul was already given up to the power of the evil spirit, so that the very worst might be dreaded from his madness, if he discovered that Samuel had anointed another king. That there was some foundation for Samuel's anxiety, we may infer from the fact that the Lord did not blame him for his fear, but pointed out the way by which he might anoint David without attracting attention (vers. 2, 3). " Take a young heifer with thee, and say (sc. if any one ask the reason for your going to Bethlehem), / am come to sacrifice to the Lordr There was no untruth in this, for Samuel was really about to conduct a sacrificial festival, and was to invite Jesse's 168 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. family to it, and then anoint the one whom Jehovah should point out to him as the chosen one. It was simply a conceal- ment of the principal object of his mission from any who might make inquiry about it, because they themselves had not been invited. " There was no dissimulation or falsehood in this, since God really wished His prophet to find safety under the pretext of the sacrifice. A sacrifice was therefore really offered, and the prophet was protected thereby, so that he was not exposed to any danger until the time of full revelation arrived" (Calvin). — Ver. 4. When Samuel arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the city came to meet him in a state of the greatest anxiety, and asked him whether his coming was peace, or promised good. The singular ip^*^ may be explained on the ground that one of the elders spoke for the rest. The anxious inquiry of the elders presupposes that even in the time of Saul the prophet Samuel was frequently in the habit of coming un- expectedly to one place and another, for the purpose of reproving and punishing wrong-doing and sin. — Yer. 5. Samuel quieted them with the reply that he was come to offer sacrifice to the Lord, and called upon them to sanctify themselves and' take part in the sacrifice. It is evident from this that the prophet was accustomed to turn his visits to account by offering sacri- fice, and so building up the people in fellowship with the Lord. The reason why sacrifices were offered at different places was, that since the removal of the ark from the tabernacle, this sanctuary had ceased to be the only place of the nation's worship. ti'7.pni?5 to sanctify one's self by washings and legal purifications, which probably preceded every sacrificial festival (yid. Ex. xix. 10, 22). The expression, " Come icith me to the sacrifice" is constructio prcegnans for " Come and take part in the sacrifice." " Call to the sacrifice " (ver. 3) is to be under- stood in the same way. nnt is the slain-offering, which was connected with every sacrificial meal. It is evident from the following words, " and he sanctified Jesse and his sons," that Samuel addressed the general summons to sanctify themselves more especially to Jesse and his sons. For it was with them that he was about to celebrate the sacrificial meal. — Vers. G sqq. When they came, sc. to the sacrificial meal, which was no doubt held in Jesse's house, after the sacrifice had been presented upon an altar, and when Samuel saw the eldest son Eliab, who was CHAP. XVI. 1-13. 169 tall and handsome according to vor. 7, ^Hie tliouglit (lit. he said, sc. in his heart), Surely His anointed is before Jehovah" i.e. surely the man is now standing before Jehovah whom He hath chosen to be His anointed. But Jehovah said to him in the spirit, " Look not at his form and the height of his stature, for 1 have rejected him : for not as man seeth (,sc. do I see) ; for man looheth at the eyes, and Jehovah loolceth at the heart." The eyes, as contrasted with the heart, are figuratively employed to denote the outward form. — Vers. 8 sqq. When Jesse thereupon brought up his other sons, one after another, before Samuel, the prophet said in the case of each, " This also Jehovah hath not chosen.^' As Samuel must be the subject to the verb l'ps^'ü in vers. 8-10, we may assume that he had communicated the object of his coming to Jesse. — Ver. 11. After the seventh had been pre- sented, and the Lord had not pointed any one of them out as the chosen one, " Samuel said to Jesse, Are these all the boys?" "When Jesse replied that there was still the smallest, i.e. the youngest, left, and he was keeping the sheep, he directed him to fetch him ; ^^ for" said he, " loe ivill not sit down till he has come hither." ^^0^ to surround, sc. the table, upon which the meal was arranged. This is implied in the context. — Vers. 12, 13. When David arrived, — and he was ruddy, also of beautiful eyes and good looks C^ioiN, used to denote the reddish colour of the hair, which was regarded as a mark of beauty in southern lands, where the hair is generally black. Oy is an adverb here = therewith), and therefore, so far as his looks and figure were concerned, well fitted, notwithstanding his youth, for the office to which the Lord had chosen him, since corporeal beauty was one of the outward distinctions of a king, — the Lord pointed him out to the prophet as the chosen one; whereupon he anointed him in the midst of his brethren. Alonff with the anointino; the Spirit of Jehovah came upon David from that day forward. But Samuel returned to Ramah when the sacrificial meal was over. There is nothing recorded concerning any words of Samuel to David at the time of the anointing and in explanation of its meaning, as in the case of Saul (ch. x. 1). In all probability Samuel said nothing at the time, since, according to ver. 2, he had good reason for keeping the matter secret, not only on his own account, but still more for David's sake ; so that even the brethren of David who were present knew nothing about the 170 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. meaning and object of the anointing, but may have imagined that Samuel merely intended to consecrate David as a pupil of the prophets. At the same time, we can hardly suppose that Samuel left Jesse, and even David, in uncertainty as to the object of his mission, and of the anointing which he had per- formed. He may have communicated all this to both of them, without letting the other sons know. It by no means follows, that because David remained with his father and kept the sheep as before, therefore his calHng to be king must have been un- known to him ; but only that in the anointing which he had received he did not discern either the necessity or obligation to appear openly as the anointed of the Lord, and that after receiving the Spirit of the Lord in consequence of the anoint- ing, he left the further development of the matter to the Lord in childlike submission, assured that He would prepare and show him the way to the throne in His own good time. Vers. 14-23. David's Introduction to the Court op Saul. — Ver. 14. With the rejection of Saul on the part of God, the Spirit of Jehovah had departed from him, and an evil spirit from Jehovah had come upon him, who filled him with fear and anguish. The " evil spirit from Jelwvah " which came into Saul in the place of the Spirit of Jehovah, was not merely an inward feeling of depression at the rejection an- nounced to him, which grew into melancholy, and occasionally broke out in passing fits of insanity, but a higher evil power, which took possession of him, and not only deprived him of his peace of mind, but stirred up the feelings, ideas, imagination, and thoughts of his soul to such an extent that at times it drove him even into madness. This demon is called " an evil spirit (coming) from Jeliovoli^^ because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment, or "an evil spirit of GocV {Elolihn : ver. 15), or briefly "a spirit of GocV (^Elohim), or ''the evil sjnrit" (ver. 23, compare ch. xviii. 10), as being a supernatural, spiritual, evil power ; but never " the Spirit of Jehovah," because this is the Spirit proceeding from the holy God, which works upon men as the spirit of strength, wisdom, and knowledge, and generates and fosters the spiritual or divine life. The ex- pression nyn nin'' lyn (ch. xix. 9) is an abbreviated form for ^'P] ^^^ ^^"^ '^^"'; and is to be interpreted accordingly. — Ver. CHAP. XVI. 14-23. 171 15. When Saul's attendants, i.e. his officers at court, perceived the mental ailment of the king, they advised him to let the evil spirit which troubled him be charmed away by instrumental music. " JLet our lord speak (command) ; thr/ servants are before thee (i.e. ready to serve thee) : thei/ icill seek a man skilled in plai/ing upon the harj) ; so will it he well ivith thee ivhen an evil spirit of God comes upon thee, and he (the man referred to) plays toith his hand." The powerful influence exerted by music upon the state of the mind was well known even in the earliest times; so that the wise men of ancient Greece recommended music to soothe the passions, to heal mental diseases, and even to check tumults among the people. From the many examples collected by Grotius, Clericus, and more especially Bochart in the Hieroz. P. i. 1. 2, c. 44, we will merely cite the words of Censorinus (de die natali, c. 12) : " Pi/thagoras ut animum sua semper divinitate imhueret, priusquam se somno daret et cum esset expergitus, cithara ut ferunt cantare consueverat, et Asclepi- ades medicus phreneticorum mentes morbo turbatas scepe per symphoniam suce naturce reddidit" — Vers. 17, 18. When Saul commanded them to seek out a good player upon a stringed instrument in accordance with this advice, one of the youths (D"'"iy3, a lower class of court servants) said, " / have seen a so7i of Jesse the Bethlehemite, skilled in playing, and a brave man, and a man of war, eloquent, and a handsome man, and Jehovah is loith him." The description of David as " a mighty man " and "a man of war" does not presuppose that David had already fought bravely in war, but may be perfectly explained from what David himself afterwards affirmed respecting his conflicts with lions and bears (ch. xvii, 34, 35). The courage and strength which he had then displayed furnished sufficient proofs of heroism for any one to discern in him the future war- rior.— Vers. 19, 20. Saul thereupon sent to ask Jesse for his son David; and Jesse sent him with a present of an ass's burden of bread, a bottle of wine, and a buck-kid. Instead of the singular expression Dn? "lioHj an ass with bread, i.e. laden with bread, the LXX. read DHP lOh, and rendered it r^o^iop aprcov; but this is certainly wrong, as they were not accustomed to measure bread in bushels. These presents show how simple were the customs of Israel and in the court of Saul at that time. — Yer. 21. When David came to Saul and stood before 172 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. him, i.e. served him hy playing upon his harp, Saul took a great liking to him, and nominated him his armour-bearer, i.e. his adjutant, as a proof of his satisfaction with him, and sent to Jesse to say, '' Let David stand before me" i.e. remain in my service, "for lie has found favour in my sight." The historian then adds (ver. 23) : " When the (evil) spirit of God came to Said (p^, as in ch. xix. 9, is really equivalent to ^^), and David took the harp and played, there came refreshing to Saul, and he became well, and the evil spirit departed from him." Thus David came to Saul's court, and that as his benefactor, without Saul having any suspicion of David's divine election to be king of Israel. This guidance on the part of God was a school of preparation to David for his future calling. In the first place, he was thereby lifted out of his quiet and homely calling in the country into the higher sphere of court-life; and thus an oppor- tunity was afforded him not only for intercourse with men of high rank, and to become acquainted with the affairs of the kingdom, but also to display those superior gifts of his intellect and heart with which God had endowed him, and thereby to gain the love and confidence of the people. But at the same time he was also brought into a severe school of affliction, in which his inner man was to be trained by conflicts from without and within, so that he might become a man after God's heart, who should be well fitted to found the true monarchy in Israel. David's victory over goliath. — chap. xvii. 1-54. A war between the Philistines and the Israelites furnished David with the opportunity of displaying before Saul and all Israel, and greatly to the terror of the enemies of his people, that heroic power which was firmly based upon his bold and pious trust in the omnipotence of the faithful covenant God (vers. 1-3). A powerful giant, named Goliath, came forward from the ranks of the Philistines, and scornfully challenged the Israelites to produce a man who would decide the war by a single combat Avith him (vers. 4-11). David, who had returned home for a time from the court of Saul, and had just been sent into the camp by his father with provisions for his elder brothers who were serving in the army, as soon as he heard the challenge and the scornful words of the Philistine, offered to fight with CHAP. XVII. 1-11. 173 him (vers. 15-37), and killed the giant with a stone from a sling; whereupon the Philistines took to flight, and were pur- sued by the Israelites to Gath and Ekron (vers. 38-54). Vers. 1-11. Some time after David first came to Saul for the purpose of playing, and when he had gone back to his father to Bethlehem, probably because Saul's condition had improved, the Philistines made a fresh attempt to subjugate the Israelites. They collected their army together (machcmeh, as in Ex. xiv. 24, Judg. iv. 16) to war at Shoclwh, the present Shuiceikeli, in the Wady Samt, three hours and a half to the south-west of Jerusalem, in the hilly region between the moun- tains of Judall and the plain of Philistia (see at Josh. xv. 35), and encamped between Shochoh and Azekali, at Ephes-dammim, which has been preserved in the ruins of Damum, about an hour and a half east by north of Shuweikeh ; so that Azekah, which has not yet been certainly traced, must be sought for to the east or north-east of Damum (see at Josh. x. 10). — Vers. 2, 3. Saul and the Israelites encamped opposite to them in the terebinth valley (Emek ha-Elali), i.e. a plain by the Wady Musur, and stood in battle array opposite to the Philistines, in such order that the latter stood on that side against the moun- tain (on the slope of the mountain), and the Israelites on this side against the mountain; and the valley {^\l\^, the deeper cut- ting made by the brook in the plain) was betiveen them. — Vers. 4 sqq. And the (well-known) champion came out of the camps of the Philistines (Q)^?!] ^''^, the middle-man, wdio decides a war between two armies by a single combat ; Luther, " the giant," according to the avyjp BvvaT6 but also by the circumstance that the expression ^''^^^ ^i3 does not occur in the whole of the Old Testament, and that D''ö*5 iTl, to pursue hotly, as in Gen. xxxi. 36. — Ver. 54. But David took the head of Goliath and brought it to Jerusalem, and put his armour in his tent, p^^ is an antiquated term for a dwelling-place, as in ch. iv. 10, xiii. 2, etc. The reference is to David's house at Bethlehem, to wdiich he returned with the booty after the defeat of Goliath, and that by the road which ran past Jerusalem, where he left the head of Goliath. There is no anachronism in these statements ; for the assertion made by some, that Jeru- salem was not yet in the possession of the Israelites, rests upon a confusion between the citadel of Jebus upon Zion, which CHAP. XVII. 55-XVIII. 30. 185 was still In the hands of the Jebusites, and the city of Jeru- salem, in which Israelites had dwelt for a long time (see at Josh. XV. 63, and Judg. i. 8). Nor is there any contradiction between this statement and ch. xxi. 9, where Goliath's sword is said to have been preserved in the tabernacle at Nob : for it is not affirmed that David kept Goliath's armour in his own home, but only that he took it thither; and the supposition that Goliath's sword was afterwards deposited by him in the sanctuary in honour of the Lord, is easily reconcilable with this. Again, the statement in ch. xviii. 2, to the effect that, after David's victory over Goliath, Saul did not allow him to return to his father's house any more, is by no means at variance with this explana- tion of the verse before us. For the statement in question must be understood in accordance with ch. xvii. 15, viz. as signifying that from that time forward Saul did not allow David to return to his father's house to keep the sheep as he had done before, and by no means precludes his paying brief visits to Bethlehem. Jonathan's friendship, saul's jealousy and plots against david. — chap. xvii. 55-xviii. 30. David's victory over Goliath was a turning-point In his life, which opened the way to the throne. But whilst this heroic deed brought him out of his rural shepher.d life to the scene of Israel's conflict with its foes, and in these conflicts Jehovah crowned all h's undertakings with such evident success, that the Israelites could not fail to discern more and more clearly in him the man whom God had chosen as their future king; it brought him, on the other hand, into such a relation to the royal house, which had been rejected by God, though it still continued, to reign, as produced lasting and beneficial results in connection with his future calling. In the king himself, from whom the Spirit of God had departed, there was soon stirred up such jealousy of David as his rival to whom the kingdom would one day come, that he attempted at first to get rid of liim by stratagem ; and when this failed, and David's renown steadily increased, he proceeded to open hostility and persecu- tion. On the other hand, the heart of Jonathan clung more and more firmly to David with self-denying love and sacrifice. This friendship on the part of the brave and noble son of the 186 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. king, not only helped David to bear the more easily all the enmity and persecution of the king when plagued by his evil spirit, but awakened and strengthened in his soul that pure feeling of unswerving fidelity towards the king himself, which amounted even to love of his enemy, and, according to the marvellous counsel of the Lord, contributed greatly to the traininsT of David for his callino; to be a king after God's own heart. In the account of the results which followed David's victory over Goliath, not only for himself but also for all Israel, the friendship of Jonathan is mentioned first (ver. 55-ch. xviii. 5) ; and this is followed by an account of the growing jealousy of Saul in its earliest stages (vers. 6-30). Ch. xvii. 55-xviii. 5. Jonathans friendship. — Vers. 55-58. The account of the relation into which David was brought to Saul through the defeat of Goliath is introduced by a supple- mentary remark, in vers. 55, 56, as to a conversation which took place between Saul and his commander-in-chief Abner concerning David, whilst he was fighting with the giant. So far, therefore, as the actual meaning is concerned, the verbs in vers, bb and 56 should be rendered as pluperfects. When Saul saw the youth walk boldly up to meet the Philistine, he asked Abner whose son he was ; whereupon Abner assured him with an oath that he did not know. In our remarks concerning the integrity of this section (p. 177) we have already observed, with regard to the meaning of the question put by Saul, that it does not presuppose an actual want of acquaintance with the person of David and the name of his father, but only igno- rance of the social condition of David's family, with which both Abner and Saul may hitherto have failed to make them- selves more fully acquainted.-^ — Vers. 57, 58. "When David returned "/rom the slaughter of the Philistine,^^ i.e. after the defeat of Goliath, and when Abner, who probably went as com- mander to meet the brave hero and congratulate him upon his victory, had brought him to Saul, the king addressed the same question to David, who immediately gave him the information he desired. For it is evident that David said more than is ^ The common solutions of this apparent discrepancy, such as that Saul pretended not to know David, or that his question is to be explained on the supposition that his disease affected his memory, have but little pro- bability in them, although Karkar still adheres to them CHAP. XVIII. 1-16. 187 here communicated, viz. " the son of thy servant Jesse the Beth- lehemite," as we have already observed, from the words of ch. xviii. 1, which presuppose a protracted conversation between Saul and David. The only reason, in all probability, why this conversation has not been recorded, is that it was not followed by any lasting results either for Jesse or David. Ch. xviii. 1-5. The bond of friendship which Jonathan formed with David was so evidently the main point, that in ver. 1 the writer commences with the love of Jonathan to David, and then after that proceeds in ver. 2 to observe that Saul took David to himself from that day forward ; whereas it is very evident that Saul told David, either at the time of his conversation with him or immediately afterwards, that he was henceforth to remain with him, i.e. in his service. " The soul of Jonathan hound itself (lit. chained itself; cf. Gen. xliv. 30) to David's soul, and Jonathan loved him as his soul.'" The Chethihh i^riN'l with the suffix i attached to the imperfect is very rare, and hence the Keri '^T^'2r\^^\ (vid. Ewald, § 249, 6, and Olshausen, Gramm, p. 469). ^^t^'7, to return to his house, viz. to engage in his former occupation as shepherd. — Ver. 3. Jonathan made a covenant (i.e. a covenant of friendship) and (i.e. with) David, because he loved him as his soul. — Ver. 4. As a sign and pledge of his friendship, Jonathan gave David his clothes and his armour. Meil, the upper coat or cloak. Maddim is probably the armour coat (vid. ch. xvii. 39). This is implied in the word "^V], which is repeated three times, and by which the different arms were attached more closely to V'nD. For the act itself, compare the exchange of armour made by Glaucus and Diomedes (Horn. //. vi. 230). This seems to have been a common custom in very ancient times, as we meet with it also among the early Celts (see Macpherson's Ossian). — Ver. 5. And David went out, sc. to battle ; tvhithersoever Saul sent him, he acted wisely and prosperously (''"'?^!, as in Josh. i. 8 : see at Deut. xxix. 8). Saul placed him above the men of war in consequence, made him one of their commanders ; and he pleased all the people, and the servants of Saul also, i.e. the courtiers of the king, who are envious as a general rule. Vers. G-16. Said's jealousy toioards David.^ — Saul had no ^ The section vers. 6-14 is supposed by Thenius and others to have been taken by the compiler from a different source from the previous one, and 188 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. sooner attached the conqueror of Goliath to his court, tlian lie began to be jealous of him. The occasion for his jealousy was the celebration of victory at the close of the war with the Philistines. — Vers. 6, 7. " When they came^^ i.e. when the warriors returned with Saul from the war, " lolien (as is added to explain what follows) David rehtrned from the slaughter" i.e. from the war in which he had slain Goliath, the women came out of all the towns of Israel, " to singing and dancing" i.e. to celebrate the victory with singing and choral dancing (see the remarks on Ex. XV. 20), " to meet king Saul with tambourines, xoith joy, and loith triangles." nnob> is used here to signify expressions of joy, a fete, as in Judg. xvi, 23, etc. The striking position in whicli the word stands, viz. between two musical instruments, shows tiiat the word is to be understood here as referring specially to songs of rejoicing, since according to ver. 7 their playing was accompanied with singing. The women who "sported" (nipnc'D), i.e. performed mimic dances, sang in alter- nate choruses (" answered" as in Ex. xv. 21), " Saul hath slain not to have been written by the same author : (1) because the same thing is mentioned in vers. 13, 14, as in ver. 5, though in a somewhat altered form, and vers. 10, 11 occur again in eh. xix. 9, 10, with a few different words, and in a more appropriate connection ; (2) because the contents of ver. 9, and the word mnSD in ver. 10, are most directly opposed to vers. 2 and 5. On these grounds, no doubt, the LXX. have not only omitted the beginning of ver. 6 from their version, but also vers. 9-11. But the supposed discrepancy between vers. 9 and 10 and vers. 2 and 5, — viz. that Saul could not have kept David by his side from attachment to him, or have placed him over his men of war after several prosperous expeditions, as is stated in vers. 2 and 5, if he had looked upon him with jealous eyes from the very first day, or if his jealousy had bi-oken out on the second day in the way described in vers. 10, 11, — is founded upon two erroneous assumptions ; viz. (1) that the facts contained in vers. 1-5 were contempo- raneous with those in vers, 6-14 ; and (2) that everything contained in these two sections is to be regarded as strictly chronological. But the fact recorded in ver. 2, namely, that Saul took David to himself, and did not allow him to go back to his father's house any more, occurred unquestion- ably some time earlier than those mentioned in vers. 6 sqq. with their consequences. Saul took David to himself immediately after the defeat of Goliath, and before the war had been brought to an end. But the celebra- tion of the victory, in which the paean of the women excited jealousy in Saul's mind, did not take place till the return of the people and of the king at the close of the war. How long the war lasted we do not know ; but from the fact that the Israelites pursued the flying Philistines to Gath CHAP. XVIII. 6-16. 189 his thousands, and David his ten thousands" — Ver. 8. Saul was ^raged at this. The Avords displeased him, so that he said, V' They have given David ten thousands, and to me thousands, and there is only the kingdom more for him" (i.e. left for him to obtain). " In this foreboding utterance of Saul there was involved not only a conjecture which the result confirmed, but a deep inward truth : if tlie king of Israel stood powerless before the subjugators of his kingdom at so decisive a period as this, and a shepherd "boy came and decided the victory, this was an additional mark of his rejection" (O. v. Gerlach). — Ver. 9. From that day forward Saul toas looHng askance at — David. ])V, a denom. verb, from \)V, an eye, looking askance, is used for T}V (Keri). — Vers. 10, 11. The next day the evil spirit fell upon Saul (" tlie evil spirit of God" see at ch. xvi. 14), so that he raved in his house, and threw his javelin at David, who played before him '■^ as day by day," but did not hit him, because David turned away before him tivice. ^5^'?'? does not and Ekron, and then plundered the camp of the Philistines after that (ch. xvii. 52, 53), it certainly follows that some days, if not weeks, must have elapsed between David's victory over Goliath and the celebration of the triumph, after the expulsion of the Philistines from the land. Thus far the events described in the two sections are arranged in their chronological order ; but for all the rest the facts are arranged antithetically, according to their peculiar character, whilst the consequences, which reached further than the facts that gave rise to them, and were to some extent contempo- raneous, are appended immediately to the facts themselves. Thus David's going out whithersoever Saul sent him (ver. 5) may indeed have com- menced during the pursuit of the flying Philistines ; but it reached far beyond this war, and continued even while Saul was looking upon him "with jealous eyes. Ver. 5 contains a general remark, with which the his- torian brings to a close one side of the relation between David and Saul, which grew out of David's victory. He then proceeds in ver. 6 to give the other side, and rounds off this paragraph also (vers. 14—16) with a general remark, the substance of which resembles, in the main, the substance of ver. 5. At the same time it implies some progress, inasmuch as the delight of the people at the acts performed by David (ver. 5) grew into love to David itself. This same progress is also apparent in ver. 13 (" Saul made him captain over a tlionsaiid"), as compared with ver. 5 (" Saul set him over tlie men of war "). Whether the elevation of David into a captain over a thousand was a higher promotion than his appointment over the men of war, or the latter expression is to be taken as simply a more general or indefinite term, denoting his promotion to the rank of commander-in- chief, is a point which can hardly be determined with certainty. 190 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. mean to prophesy in this instance, but " to rave." This use of the word is founded upon the ecstatic utterances, in which the supernatural influence of the Spirit of God manifested itself in the prophets (see at ch. x. 5). ^^l], from ?^D, he hurled the javelin, and said (to himself), " / lolll pierce David and the vmlir With such force did he hurl his spear ; but David turned away from him, i.e. eluded it, twice. His doing so a second time presupposes that Saul hurled the javelin twice ; that is to say, he probably swung it twice without letting it go out of his hand, — a supposition which is raised into certainty by the fact that it is not stated here that the javelin entered the wall, as in ch. xix. 10. But even with this view ?^) is not to be changed into ^'^\, as Thenius proposes, since the verb ?^\ cannot be proved to have ever the meaning to swing. Saul seems to have held the javelin in his hand as a sceptre, accord- ing to ancient custom. — Vers. 12, 13. " And Saul was afraid of David, because the Spirit of Jehovah was with him, and had departed from Saul ;" he " removed him therefore from him," i.e. from his immediate presence, by appointing him chief captain over thousand, f In this fear of David on the part of Saul, the true reason for his hostile behaviour is pointed out with deep psychological truth. The fear arose from the con- sciousness that the Lord had departed from him, — a conscious- ness 'vvhich forced itself involuntarily upon him, and drove him to make the attempt, in a fit of madness, to put David to deathri TThe fact that David did not leave Saul immediately after t\ns^ attempt upon his life, may be explained not merely on the supposition that he looked upon this attack as being simply an outburst of momentary madness, which would pass away, but still more from his firm believing confidence, which kept him from forsaking the post in which the Lord had placed him without any act of his own, until he saw that Saul was plotting to take his life, not merely in these fits of insanity, but also at other times, in calm deliberationl(mc?. ch. xix. 1 sqq.). — Vers. 14 sqq. As chief commander over thousand, he went out and in before the people, i.e. he carried out military enterprises, and that so wisely and prosperously, that the blessing of the Lord rested upon all he did. But these successes on David's part increased Saul's fear of him, whereas all Israel and Judah came to love him as their leader. David's success in all that he took CHAP, XVIII. 17-30. 191 in hand compelled Saul to promote liim ; and his standing with the people increased with his promotion. But as tlie Spirit of God had departed from Saul, this only filled him more and more with dread of David as his rival. (As the hand of the Lord was visibly displayed in David's success, so, on the other hand, Saul's rej^ection by God was manifested in his increasing fear of Duvid^f Vers. 17-50. Craftiness of Saul in the betrothal of his daughters to David. — Vers. 17 sqq. As Saul had promised to give his daughter for a wife to the conqueror of Goliath (ch. xvii. 25), he felt obliged, by the growing love and attachment of the people to David, to fulfil this promise, and told him that he was ready to do so, with the hope of finding in this some means of destroying David. He therefore offered him his elder daughter Merah with words that sounded friendly and kind : " Only be a brave man to me, and loage the wars of the J^ord^ He called the wars with the Philistines " wars of Jehovah^'' i.e. \vars for the maintenance and defence of the kingdom of God, to conceal his own cunning design, and make David feel all the more sure that the king's heart was only set upon the welfare of the kingdom of God. Whoever wao-ed the wars of the Lord might also hope for the help of the Lord. But Saul had intentions of a very different kind. He thought (" said," sc. to himself), " -Mi/ hand shall not be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him;^' i.e. I will not put him to death; the Philistines may do that. When Saul's reason had returned, he shrank from laying hands upon David again, as he had done before in a fit of madness. He therefore hoped to destroy him through the medium of the Phihstines. — Ver. 18. But David replied with true humility, without suspecting the craftiness of Saul : " Who am I, and what is my condition in life, my father s family in Israel, that I should become son-in-law to the kingV^ ''»n '•D is a difficult expression, and has been translated in different ways, as the meaning which suggests itself first (viz. ^^ what is my life") is neither reconcilable with the ''0 (the interrogative personal pronoun), nor suitable to the context. Gesenius {Thes. p. 471) and Böttcher give the meaning ^^ people" for Ü'".n, and Ewald (Gramm. § 179, b) the meaning '\family." But neither of these meaninjrs can be established. Q""n seems evidently to signify the condition in life, the relation in which 192 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. a person stands to others, and ""P is to be explained on the ground that David referred to tlie persons who formed the class to which he belonged, "ilij/ father s family ^^ includes all his relations. David's meaning was, that neither on personal grounds, nor on account of his social standing, nor because of his lineage, could he make the slightest pretension to the honour of becoming the son-in-law of the king. — Ver. 19. But Saul did not keep his promise. When the time arrived for its fulfil- ment, he gave his daughter to Adriel the Meholathite, a man of whom nothing further is known.^ — Vei's. 20-24. M'lchal is married to David. — The pretext under which Saul broke his promise is not given, but it appears to have been, at any rate in part, that Merab had no love to David. This may be inferred from vers. 17, 18, compared with ver. 20. Michal, the younger daughter of Saul, loved David. When Saul was told this, the thing was quite right in his eyes. He said, " / loill give her to Mm, that she may become a snare to him, and the hand of the Philistines may come upon Jiim " (sc. if he tries to get the price which I shall require as dowry ; cf. ver. 25). He therefore said to David, " In a second ivay (Q^^ii?'?, as in Job xxxiii. 14) shall thou become my son-in-law." Saul said this casually to David ; but he made no reply, because he had found out the fickleness of Saul, and therefore put no further trust in his words. — Ver. 22. Saul therefore employed his courtiers to persuade David to accept his offer. In this way we may reconcile in a very simple manner the apparent discrepancy, that Saul is said to have offered his daughter to David himself, and yet he com- missioned his servants to talk to David privately of the king's willingness to give him his daughter. The omission of ver. 215 in the Septuagint is to be explained partly from the fact that DW3 points back to vers. 17-19, which are wanting in this version, and partly also in all probability from the idea enter- tained by the translators that the statement itself is at variance with vers. 22 sqq. The courtiers were to talk to David u^^, " in private^' i.e. as though they were doing it behind the king's back. — Ver. 23. David replied to the courtiers, " Does it seem to you a little thing to become son-in-law to the king, seeing that 1 1 Vers. 17-19 are omitted from the Septuagint version ; but tliey are so, no doubt, only because Saul's first promise was without result so far as David was concerned. CHAP. XVIII. 17-30. 193 am a poor and humble man ? " " Poor" i.e. utterly unable to offer anything like a suitable dowry to the king. This reply- was given by David in perfect sincerity, since he could not possibly suppose that the king would give him his daughter without a considerable marriage portion. — Vers. 24 sqq. When this answer was reported to the king, he sent word through his courtiers what the price was for which he would give him his daughter. He required no dowry (see at Gen. xxxiv. 12), but only a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, i.e. the slaughter of a hundred Philistines, and the proof that this had been done, to avenge himself upon the enemies of the king ; whereas, as the writer observes, Saul supposed that he should thus cause David to fall, i.e. bring about his death by the hand of the Philistines. — Vers. 26, 27. But David was satisfied with Saul's demand, since he had no suspicion of his craftiness, and loved Michal. Even before the days were full, i.e. before the time appointed for the delivery of the dowry and for the marriage had arrived, he rose up with his men, smote two hundred Philistines, and brought their foreskins, which were placed in their full number before the king ; whereupon Saul was obliged to give him Michal his daughter to wife. The words " and the days were not fuW (ver. 26) form a circumstantial clause, which is to be connected with the following sentence, " David arose^^ etc. David delivered twice the price demanded. " Tliey made them full to the king" i.e. they placed them in their full number before him. — Vers. 28, 29. The knowledge of the fact that David had carried out all his enterprises with, success had already filled the melancholy king with fear. [But when the failure of this new plan for devoting David to certain death had forced the conviction upon him that Jehovah was with David, and that he was miraculously protected by Him ; and when, in addition to this, there was the love of his daughter Michal to David ; his fear of David grew into a lifelong enmity^ Thus his evil spirit urged^him ever forward to greater and greater hardness of heart.-j— Ver. 30. The occasion for the practical manifestation of this enmity was the success of David in all his engagements with the Philistines. As often as the princes of the Philistines went out {sc. to war with Israel), David acted more wisely and prosperously than all the servants T»f Saul, so that his name was held in great honour. With this N 194 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. general remark the way is prepared for the further history of Saul's conduct towards David. Jonathan's intercession for david. saul's renewed ATTEMPTS TO MURDER HIM. DAVID's FLIGHT TO SAMUEL. —CHAP. XIX. Vers. 1-7. Jonathan warded off the first outbreak of deadly enmity on the part of Saul towards David. |When Saul spoke to his son Jonathan and all his servants about his intention to kill David OH""^ ^V^?, i-e- not that they should kill David, but " that he intended to kill him"), Jonathan reported this to David, because he was greatly attached to him, and gave him this advlcej " Take heed to thyself in the morning ; keep thyself in a secret place, and hide thyself. I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where thou art, and I will talk to my father about thee (? "i^l, as in Deut. vi. 7, Ps. Ixxxvii. 3, etc., to talk of or about a person), and see tohat {sc. he will say), and show it to thee." David was to conceal himself in the field near to where Jonathan would converse with his father about him ; not that he might hear the conversation in his hiding-place, but that Jonathan might immediately report to him the result of his conversation, without there being any necessity for going far away from his father, so as to excite suspicion that he was in league with David. — Vers. 4, 5. Jonathan then endeavoured with all the modesty of a son to point out most earnestly to his father the grievous wickedness involved in his conduct towards David. " Let not the king sin against his servant, against David; for he hath not sinned against thee, and his works are very good (i.e. very useful) to thee. He hath risked his life (see at Judg. xii. 3), and smitten the Philistines, and Jehovah hath wrought a great salvation of all Israel. Thou hast seen it, and rejoiced ; and wherefore wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause V — Vers. 6, 7. These words made an impression upon Saul. He swore, " -4s Jehovah liveth, he (David) shall not be put to death;" whereupon Jonathan reported these words to David, and brought him to Saul, so that he was with him again as before. But this reconciliation, unfortunately, did not last long. Vers. 8-17. Another great defeat which David had inflicted CHAP. XIX. 8-17. 195 upon the Philistines excited Saul to such an extent, that in a fit of insanity he endeavoured to pierce David with his javelin as he was playing before him. The words Ruach Jehovah describe the attack of madness in which Saul threw the javelin at David according to its higher cause, and that, as implied in the words Ruach Jehovah in contrast with Ruach Elohim (ch. xviii. 10, xvi. 15), as inflicted upon him by Jehovah. The thought expressed is, thatllthe growth of Saul's melancholy was a sign of the hardness of heart to which Jehovah had given him up on account of his impenitence.l David happily escaped this javelin also. He slipped away from Saul, so that he hurled the javelin into the wall ; whereupon David fled and escaped the same night, i.e. the night after this occurrence. This remark somewhat anticipates the course of the events, as the author, according to the custom of Hebrew historians, gives the result at once, and then proceeds to describe in detail the more exact order of the events. — Ver. 11. " Saul sent messengers to David's house" to which David had first fled, " to watch him (that he might not get away again), and to put him to death in the (next) morning." T^Iichal made him acquainted with this danger, and then let him down through the window, so that he escaped.J The danger in which David was at that time is described by him in Ps. lix., from which we may see how Saul was sur- rounded by a number of cowardly courtiers, who stirred up his hatred against David, and were busily engaged in getting the dreaded rival out of the way. — Vers. 13, 14. Michal then took the teraphimy — i.e. in all probability an image of the household gods of the size of life, and, judging from what follows, in human form, — laid it in the bed, and put a piece of woven goats' hair at his head, i.e. either round or over the head of the image, and covered it with the garment (beged, the upper garment, which was generally only a square piece of cloth for wrapping round), and told the messengers whom Saul had sent to fetch him that he was ill. Michal probably kept teraphim in secret, like Rachel, because of her barrenness (see at Gen. xxxi. 19). The meaning of ^""^H.^ "'"'^3 is doubtful. The earlier translators took it to mean goat-skin, with the exception of the Seventy, who confounded "f^S with 132^ liver, upon which Josephus founds his account of Michal having placed a still moving goat's liver in the bed, to make the messengers believe that there was a 196 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. breathing invalid beneath. 'T'^3, from "i?3, signifies something woven, and D''W goats' hair, as in Ex. xxv. 4. But it is impos- sible to decide with certainty what purpose the cloth of goats' hair was to serve ; whether it was merely to cover the head of the teraphim with hair, and so make it like a human head, or to cover the head and face as if of a person sleeping. The definite article not only before ^"'S^Pi and 153, but also with D''^J?n Tins, suggests the idea that all these things belonged to Michal's house furniture, and that D'''[y 1''33 was probably a counterpane made of goats' hair, with which persons in the East are in the habit of covering the head and face when sleeping. — Vers. 15 sqq. But when Saul sent the messengers again to see David, and that with the command, '' Bring him up to me in the bed" and when they only found the teraphim in the bed, and Saul charged Michal with this act of deceit, she replied, " He (David) said to me, Let me go ; lohy should I kill thee V — ^' Behold, teraphim were (laid) in the bed." The vei'b can be naturally supplied from ver. 13. In the words " Why should I kill thee?" Michal intimates that she did not mean to let David escape, but was obliged to yield to his threat that he would kill her if she continued to refuse. This prevarication she seems to have considered perfectly justifiable. Vers. 18-24. David fled to Samuel at Ramah, and reported to him all that Saul had done, partly to seek for further advice from the prophet who had anointed him, as to his further course, and partly to strengthen himself, by intercourse with him, for the troubles that still awaited him. He therefore went along with Samuel, and dwelt with him in Naioth. JT'IJ (to be read n^13 according to the Chethibh, for which the Masoretes have substituted the form nVJ, vers. 19, 23, and xx. 1), from nw or ni^^ signifies dwellings ; but here it is in a certain sense a proper name, applied to the coenobium of the pupils of the prophets, who had assembled round Samuel in the neighbour- hood of Ramah. The plural n^13 points to the fact, that this coenobium consisted of a considerable number of dwelling- places or houses, connected together by a hedge or wall. — Vers. 19, 20. When Saul was told where this place was, he sent messengers to fetch David. But as soon as the messengers saw the company of prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came upon them, so that I CHAP, XIX. 18-24. 197 they also prophesied. The singular fr?"111 is certainly very striking here ; but it is hardly to be regarded as merely a copyist's error for the plural 'i^'}--' because it is extremely improbable that such an error as this should have found universal admission into the MSS. ; so that it is in all probability to be taken as the original and correct reading, and understood either as relating to the leader of the messengers, or as used because the whole company of messengers were regarded as one body. The aTT. X.67. ni^np signifies, according to the ancient versions, an assembly, equivalent to ^^i]?., from which it arose according to Kimchi and other Rabbins by simple inversion. — Ver. 21. The same thing happened to a second and third company of mes- sengers, whom Saul sent one after another when the thing was reported to him. — Vers. 22 sqq. Saul tlien set out to Ramah himself, and inquired, as soon as he had arrived at the great pit at Sechu (a place near Ramah with which we are not acquainted), where Samuel and David were, and went, according to the answer he received, to the Naioth at Ramah. There the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he went along prophesying, until he came to the Naioth at Ramah ; and there he even took off his clothes, and prophesied before Samuel, and lay there naked all that day, and the whole night as well. Qi"'^, yvfjiv6<;, does not always signify complete nudity, but is also applied to a person with his upper garment off (cf. Isa. xx. 2 ; Älicah i. 8 ; John xxi. 7). From the repeated expression " he also,'' in vers. 23, 24, it is not only evident that Saul came into an ecstatic condition of prophesying as well as his servants, but that the prophets themselves, and not merely the servants, took off their clothes like Saul when they prophesied. It is only in the case of D^y ?B*1 that the expression " he also" is not repeated ; from which we must infer, that Saul alone lay there the whole day and night with his clothes off, and in an ecstatic state of external unconsciousness ; whereas the ecstasy of his servants and the prophets lasted only a short time, and the clear self- consciousness returned earlier than with Saul. This difference IS not without significance in relation to the true explanation of the whole affair. Saul had experienced a similar influence of the Spirit of God before, namely, immediately after his anoint- ing by Samuel, when he met a company of prophets who were prophesying at Gibeah, and he had been thereby changed into 198 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. another man (ch. x. 6 sqq.). This miraculous seizure by the Spirit of God was repeated again here, when he came near to the seat of tlie prophets ; and it also affected the servants whom he had sent to apprehend David, so that Saul was obliged to relinquish the attempt to seize him. This result, however, we cannot regard as the principal object of the whole occurrence, as Vatablus does when he says, " The spirit of prophecy came into Saul, that David might the more easily escape from his power." (Calvin's remarks go much deeper into the meaning : " God," liS"says, " changed their (the messengers') thoughts and purpose, not only so that they failed to apprehend David accord- ing to the royal command, but so that they actually became the companions of the prophets. And God effected this, that the fact itself might show how He holds the hearts of men in His hand and power, and turns and moves them according to His will." Even this, however, does not bring out the full meaning of the miracle, and more especially fails to explain why the same thing should have happened to Saul in an intensified degree. Upon this point Calvin simply observes, that " Saul ought indeed to have been strongly moved by these things, and to have discerned the impossibility of his accomplishing any- thing by fighting against the Lord ; but he was so hardened that he did not perceive the hand of God : for he hastened to Naioth himself, when he found that his servants mocked him ;" and in this proceeding on Saul's part he discovers a sign of his increasing hardness of heart. Saul and his messengers, the zealous performers of his will, ought no doubt to have learned, from what happened to them in the presence of the prophets, that God had the hearts of men in His power, and guided them at His will ; but they were also to be seized by the might of the Spirit of God, which worked in the prophets, and thus brought to the consciousness, that Saul's raging against David was fighting against Jehovah and His Spirit, and so to be led to give up the evil thoughts of their heart. Saul was seized by this mighty influence of the Spirit of God in a more powerful manner than his servants were, both because he had most obsti- nately resisted the leadings of divine grace, and also in order that, if it were possible, his hard heart might be broken and subdued by the power of grace. If, however, he should never- theless continue obstinately in his rebellion against God, ho ( CHAP. XIX. 18-24. 199 would then fall under the judgment of hardening, which would be speedily followed by his destructionJ* This new occurrence in Saul's life occasioned a renewal of the proverb : " Is Saul also among the prophets ?" The words " wherefore they say^^ do not imply that the proverb was first used at this time, but only that it received a new exemplification and basis in the new event in Saul's experience. The origin of it has been already mentioned in ch. X. 12, and the meaning of it was there explained. This account is also worthy of note, as having an important bearing upon the so-called Schools of the Prophets in the time of Samuel, to which, however, we have only casual allusions. From the passage before us we learn that there was a company of prophets at Kamah, under the superintendence of Samuel, whose members lived in a common building (n^lJ), and that Samuel had his own house at Ramah (ch. vii. 17), though he sometimes lived in the Naioth (cf. vers. 18 sqq.). The origin and history of these schools are involved in obscurity. If we bear in mind, that, according to ch. iii. 1, before the call of Samuel as prophet, the prophetic word was very rare in Israel, and prophecy was not widely spread, there can be no doubt that these unions of prophets arose in the time of Samuel, and were called into existence by him. The only uncertainty is whether there were other such unions in different parts of the land beside the one at Ramah. In ch. x. 5, 10, we find a band of prophesying prophets at Gibeah, coming down from the sacrificial height there, and going to meet Saul ; but it is not stated there that this company had its seat at Gibeah, although it may be inferred as probable, from the name " Gibeah of GocV (see the commentary on ch. x. 5, G). No further mention is made of these in the time of Samuel ; nor do we meet with them again till the times of Elijah and Elisha, when we find them, under the name of sons of the prophets (1 Kings xx. 35), living in considerable numbers at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho {viJ. 2 Kings iv. 38, ii. 3, 5, 7, 15, iv. 1, vi. 1, ix. 1). Accord- ing to ch. iv. 38, 42, 43, about a hundred sons of the prophets sat before Elisha at Gilgal, and took their meals tofrether. The number at Jericho may have been quite as great; for fifty men of the sons of the prophets went with Elijah and Elisha to the Jordan (comp. ch. ii. 7 with vers. IG, 17). These passages render it very probable that the sons of the prophets also lived 200 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. in a common house. And this conjecture is raised into a cer* tainty by ch. vi. 1 sqq. In this passage, for example, they are represented as saying to EHsha : " The place where we sit before thee is too strait for us ; let us go to the Jordan, and let each one fetch thence a beam, and build ourselves a place to dwell in there.'-' It is true that we might, if necessary, supply ^''^^'r from ver. 1, after ^^ ^?^^, " to sit before thee," and so understand the words as merely referring to the erection of a more com- modious place of meeting. But if they built it by the Jordan, we can hardly imagine that it was merely to serve as a place of meeting, to which they would have to make pilgrimages from a distance, but can only assume that they intended to live there, and assemble together under the superintendence of a prophet. In all probability, however, only such as were unmarried lived in a common building. Many of them were married, and there- fore most likely lived in houses of their own (2 Kings iv. 1 sqq.). We may also certainly assume the same with reference to the unions of prophets in the time of Samuel, even if it is impos- sible to prove that these unions continued uninterruptedly from the time of Samuel down to the times of Elijah and Elisha. Oehler argues in support of this, " that the historical connec- tion, which can be traced in the influence of prophecy from the time of Samuel forwards, may be most easily explained from the uninterrupted continuance of these supports ; and also that the large number of prophets, who must have been already there according to 1 Kings xviii. 13 when Elijah first appeared, points to the existence of such unions as these." But the his- torical connection in the influence of prophecy, or, in other words, the uninterrupted succession of prophets, was also to be found in the kingdom of Judah both before and after the times of Elijah and Elisha, and down to the Babylonian captivity, without our discovering the slightest trace of any schools of the prophets in that kingdom. All that can be inferred from 1 Kings xviii. is, that the large number of prophets mentioned there (vers. 4 and 13) were living in the time of Elijah, but not that they were there when he first appeared. The first mission of Elijah to king Ahab (ch. xvii.) took place about three years before the events described in 1 Kings xviii., and even this first appearance of the prophet in the presence of the king is not to be regarded as the commencement of his prophetic labours. i CHAP, XIX. 18-24. 201 How long Elijah had laboured before he announced to Ah ab the judgment of three years' drought, cannot indeed be decided ; but if we consider that he received instructions to call Elisha to be his assistant and successor not very long after this period of judgment had expired (1 Kings xix. 16 sqq.), we may cer- tainly assume that he had laboured in Israel for many years, and may therefore have founded unions of the prophets. In addition, however, to the absence of any allusion to the con- tinuance of these schools of the prophets, there is another thing which seems to preclude the idea that they were perpetuated from the time of Samuel to that of Elijah, viz. the fact that the schools which existed under Elijah and Elisha were only to be found in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and never in that of Judah, where we should certainly expect to find them if they had been handed down from Samuel's time. Moreover, Oehler also acknowledges that " the design of the schools of the prophets, and apparently their constitution, were not the same under Samuel as in the time of Elijah." This is confirmed by the fact, that the members of the prophets' unions which arose under Samuel are never called " sons of the prophets," as those who were under the superintendence of Elijah and Elisha invariably are (see the passages quoted above). Does not this peculiar epithet seem to indicate, that the " sons of the prophets" stood in a much more intimate relation to Elijah and Elisha, as their spiritual fathers, than the Q'^^'n^n bn or D'^5'33^l ni^n^ did to Samuel as their president ? (1 Sam. xix. 20.) D''X''33n ''33 does not mean filii prophetce, i.e. sons who are prophets, as some maintain, though without being able to show that ""JS is ever used in this sense, but ßlii prophetarum, disciples or scholars of the prophets, from which it is very evident that these sons of the prophets stood in a relation of dependence to the prophets (Elijah and Elisha), i.e. of subordination to them, and followed their instructions and admonitions. They received commissions from them, and carried them out (vid. 2 Kings ix. 1). On the other hand, the expressions /Sn and n[5n7 simply point to com- binations for common working under the presidency of Samuel, although the words ^^y.^. 3^*^ certainly show that the direction of these unions, and probably the first impulse to form them, proceeded from Samuel, so that we might also call these societies schools of the prophets. 202 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL, The opinions entertained with regard to the nature of these unions, and their importance in relation to the development of the kingdom of God in Israel, differ very widely from one another. Whilst some of the fathers (Jerome for example) looked upon them as an Old Testament order of monks ; others, such as Tennemann, Meiners, and Winer, compare them to the Pythagorean societies. Kranichfeld supposes that they were free associations, and chose a distinguished prophet like Samuel as their president, in order that they might be able to cement their union the more firmly through his influence, and carry out their vocation with the greater success.^ The truth lies between these two extremes. The latter view, which precludes almost every relation of dependence and community, is not reconcilable with the name " sons of the prophets," or with ch. xix. 20, where Samuel is said to have stood at the head of the prophesying prophets as CjnvJ? Di'3, and has no support whatever in the Scriptures, but is simply founded upon the views of modern times and our ideas of liberty and equality. The prophets' unions had indeed so far a certain resemblance to the monastic orders of the early church, that the members lived together in the same buildings, and performed certain sacred duties in common ; but if we look into the aim and purpose of monas- ticism, they were the very opposite of those of the prophetic life. The prophets did not wish to withdraw from the tumult of the world into solitude, for the purpose of carrying on a contemplative life of holiness in this retirement from the earthly life and its affairs ; but their unions were associations formed for the purpose of mental and spiritual training, that they might exert a more powerful influence upon their contem- poraries. They were called into existence by chosen instru- ments of the Lord, such as Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, whom the Lord had called to be His prophets, and endowed with a peculiar measure of His Spirit for this particular calling, that they might check the decline of religious life in the nation, and bring back the rebellious " to the law and the testimony." ^ Compare Jerome (Epht. iv. ad Rustic. Munncli. c. 7) : "The sons of the prophets, whom we call the monks of the Old Testament, built them- selves cells near the streams of the Jordan, and, forsaking the crowded cities, lived on meal and wild terbs." Compare with this his Epist. siii. ad Paidin^ c. 5. CHAP. XIX. 18-24. 203 Societies which follow this as their purpose in life, so long as they do not lose sight of it, will only separate and cut them- selves off from the external world, so far as the world itself opposes them, and pursues them with hostility and persecution. The name " schools of the prophets" is the one which expresses most fully the character of these associations ; only we must not think of them as merely educational institutions, in which the pupils of the prophets received instruction in prophesying or in theological studies.^ We are not in possession indeed of any minute information concerning their constitution. Pro- phesying could neither be taught nor communicated by instruc- tion, but was a gift of God which He communicated according to His free w'ill to whomsoever He would. But the communi- cation of this divine gift was by no means an arbitrary thing, but presupposed such a mental and spiritual disposition on the part of the recipient as fitted him to receive it ; whilst the exercise of the gift required a thorough acquaintance with the law and the earlier revelations of God, which the schools of the prophets were well adapted to promote. It is therefore justly and generally assumed, that the study of the law and of the history of the divine guidance of Israel formed a leading feature in the occupations of the pupils of the prophets, which also included the cultivation of sacred poetry and music, and united exercises for the promotion of the prophetic inspiration. That the study of the earlier revelations of God was carried on, may be very safely inferred from the fact that from the time of Samuel downwards the writing of sacred history formed an essential part of the prophet's labours, as has been already observed at vol. iv. pp. 9, 10 (translation). The cultivation of sacred music and poetry may be inferred partly from the fact that, according to ch. x. 5, musicians walked in front of the ^ Thus the Rabbins regarded them as KHTO ""fia ; and the earlier theo- T ; • ** T logians as colleges, in which, as Vitringa expresses it, "philosophers, or if you please theologians, and candidates or students of theology, assembled for the purpose of devoting themselves assiduously to the study of divinity under the guidance of some one who was well skilled as a teacher ;" whilst others regarded them as schools for the training of teachers for the people, and leaders in the worship of God. The English Deists — Morgan for ex- ample— regarded them as seats of scientific learning, in which the study of history, rhetoric, poetry, natural science, and moral philosophy waa carried on. ^04 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. prophesying prophets, playing as they went along, and partly also from the fact that sacred music not only received a fresh impulse from David, who stood in a close relation to the asso- ciation of prophets at Ramah, but was also raised by him into an integral part of public worship. At the same time, music was by no means cultivated merely that the sons of the prophets might employ it in connection with their discourses, but also as means of awakening holy susceptibilities and emotions in the soul, and of lifting up the spirit to God, and so preparing it for the reception of divine revelations (see at 2 Kings iii. 15). And lastly, we must include among the spiritual exercises pro- phesying in companies, as at Gibeah (ch. x. 5) and Ramah (ch. xix. 20). The outward occasion for the formation of these commu- nities we have to seek for partly in the creative spirit of the prophets Samuel and Elijah, and partly in the circumstances of the times in which they lived. The time of Samuel forms a turning-point in the development of the Old Testament kingdom of God. Shortly after the call of Samuel the judgment fell upon the sanctuary, which had been profaned by the shameful conduct of the priests : the tabernacle lost the ark of the cove- nant, and ceased in consequence to be the scene of the gracious presence of God in Israel. Thus the task fell upon Samuel, as prophet of the Lord, to found a new house for that religious life which he had kindled, by collecting together into closer com- munities, those who had been awakened by his word, not only for the promotion of their own faith under his direction, but also for joining with him in the spread of the fear of God and obedience to the law of the Lord among their contemporaries. But just as, in the time of Samuel, it was the fall of the legal sanctuary and priesthood which created the necessity for the founding of schools of the prophets ; so in the times of Elijah and Elisha, and in the kingdom of the ten tribes, it was the utter absence of any sanctuary of Jehovah which led these prophets to found societies of prophets, and so furnish the worshippers of Jehovah, who would not bend their knees to Baal, with places and means of edification, as a substitute for what the righteous in the kingdom of Judah possessed in the temple and the Levitical priesthood. But the reasons for the establishment of prophets' schools were not to be found merely in the circumstances of CHAP. XIX. 18-24. 205 the times. There was a higher reason still, which must not be overlooked in our examination of these unions, and their importance in relation to the theocracy. We may learn from the fact that the disciples of the prophets who were associated together under Samuel are found prophesying (ch. x. 10, xix. 20), that they were also seized by the Spirit of God, and that the Divine Spirit which moved them exerted a powerful influ- ence upon all who came into contact with them. Consequently the founding of associations of prophets is to be regarded as an operation of divine grace, which is generally manifested with all the greater might where sin most mightily abounds. As the Lord raised up prophets for His people at the times when apostasy had become great and strong, that they might resist idolatry with almighty power ; so did Pie also create for himself organs of His Spirit in the schools of the prophets, who united with their spiritual fathers in fighting for His honour. It was by no means an accidental circumstance, therefore, that these unions are only met with in the times of Samuel and of the prophets Elijah and Elislia. These times resembled one another in the fact, that in both of them idolatry had gained the upper hand ; though, at the same time, there were some respects in which they differed essentially from one another. In the time of Samuel the people did not manifest the same hostility to the prophets as in the time of Elijah. Samuel stood at the head of the nation as judge even during the reign of Saul; and after the rejection of the latter, he still stood so high in authority and esteem, that Saul never ventured to attack the prophets even in his madness. Elijah and Elisha, on the other hand, stood opposed to a royal house which was bent upon making the worship of Baal the leading religion of the kingdom ; and they had to contend against priests of calves and prophets of Baal, who could only be compelled by hard strokes to acknow- ledge the Lord of Sabaoth and His prophets. In the case of the former, what had to be done was to bring the nation to a recognition of its apostasy, to foster the new life which was just awakening, and to remove whatever hindrances might be placed in its way by the monarchy. In the time of the latter, on the contrary, what was needed was " a compact phalanx to stand against the corruption which had penetrated so deeply into the nation." These differences in the times would certainly not bo 206 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL, without their influence upon the constitution and operations of the schools of the prophets. Jonathan's last attempt to reconcile his father to david. — chap. xx.-xxi. 1. Vers. 1-11. After the occurrence which had taken place at Naioth, David fled thenpe and met with Jonathan, to whom he poured out his heart.^ (Though he had been delivered for the moment from the death which threatened him, through the mar- vellous influence of the divine inspiration of the prophets upon Saul and his messengers, he could not find in this any lasting protection from the plots of his mortal enemy.) He therefore sought for his friend Jonathan, and complained to him, " What have I done 1 what is my crime, my sin before thy father, that he seeks my life ? " — Ver. 2. Jonathan endeavoured to pacify him : " Far be it I thou shalt not die : behold, my father does no- tiling great or small {i.e. not the smallest thing ; cf . ch. xxv. 36 and Num. xxii. 18) that lie does not reveal to me; why should my father hide this thing from me ? It is not so." The \? after i^^*} stands for N? : the Chethibh nbV is probably to be preferred to the Keti i^^Vl, and to be understood in this sense : " My father has (hitherto) done nothing at all, which he has not told to me." This answer of Jonathan does not presuppose that he knew nothing of the occurrences described in ch. xix. 9-24, although it is possible enough that he might not have been with his father just at that time ; but it is easily explained from the fact that Saul had made the fresh attack upon David's life in a state of madness, in which he was no longer master of himself ; so that it could not be inferred with certainty from this that he would ^ According to Ewald and Thenius, this chapter was not written by the author of the previous one, but was borrowed from an earlier source, and ver. 1 was inserted by the compiler to connect the two together. But the principal reason for this conjecture — namely, that David could never have thought of sitting at the royal table again after what had taken place, and that Saul would still less have expected him to come — is overthrown by the simple suggestion, that all that Saul had hitherto attempted against David, according to ch. xix. 8 sqq., had been done in fits of insanity (cf. ch. xix. 9 sqq.), which had passed away again ; so that it formed no criterion by which to judge of Saul's actual feelings towards David when he was in a state of mental sanity. CHAP. XX. 1-11. 207 still plot against David's life in a state of clear consciousness. [Hitherto Saul had no doubt talked over all his plans and under- takings with Jonathan, but he had not uttered a single word to him about his deadly hatred, or his intention of killing David ; so that Jonathan might really have regarded his previous attacks upon David's life as nothing niore than symptoms of temporary aberration of mind^.— Ver. 3^^ Bat David had looked deeper into Saul's hearts He replied with an oath (" he sware again," i.e. a second time), " Thi/ father knoioeth that I have found favour in thine eyes (i.e. that thou art attached to me) ; and ihinketh Jonathan shall not know this, lest he be grieved. But truly, as surely as Jehovah liveth, and thy soul liveth, there is hardly a step (lit. about a step) between me and death." "'S in- troduces the substance of the oath, as in ch. xiv. 44, etc. — Ver. 4. When Jonathan answered, " What thy soul saith, ivill I do to thee," i.e. fulfil every wish, David made this request, " Behold, to-morrow is new moon, and I ought to sit and eat with the king : let me go, that I may conceal myself in the field (i.e. in the open air) till the third evening" This request implies that Saul gave a feast at the new moon, and therefore that the new moon was not merely a religious festival, according to the law in Num. X. 10, xxviii. 11-15, but that it was kept as a civil festival also, and in the latter character for two days ; as we may infer both from the fact that David reckoned to the third evening, i.e. the evening of the third day from the day then present, and therefore proposed to hide himself on the new moon's day and the day following, and also still more clearly from vers. 12, 27, and 34, where Saul is said to have expected David at table on the day after the new moon. We cannot, indeed, conclude from this that there was a religious festival of two days' dura- tion ; nor does it follow, that because Saul supposed that David might have absented himself on the first day on account of Levitical uncleanness (ver. 26), therefore the royal feast was a sacrificial meal. . It was evidently contrary to social propriety to take part in a public feast in a state of Levitical uncleanness, even though it is not expressly forbidden in the law. — Ver. 6. " If thy father should miss me, then say, David hath asked per- mission of me to hasten to Bethlehem, his native town; for there is a yearly sacrifice for the whole family there.'^ This ground of excuse shows that families and households were accustomed to 208 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. keep united sacrificial feasts once a year. According to the Haw in Deut. xii. 5 sqq., they ought to have been kept at the taber- nacle ; but at this time, when the central sanctuary had fallen into disuse, they were held in different places, wherever there were altars of Jehovah — as, for example, at Bethlehem (cf. ch. xvi. 2 sqq.). We see from these words tliat David did not look upon prevarication as a sin. — Ver. 7. ^'' If thy father says, It is ivell, there is peace to thy servant {i.e. he cherishes no murderous thoughts against me) ; but if he be very loroih, knoio that evil is determined by him^ n73, to be completed ; hence to be firmly and unalterably determined (cf. ch. xxv. 17; Esther vii. 7). Seb. Schmidt infers from the closing words that the fact was certain enough to David, but not to Jonathan. Thenius, on the other hand, observes much more correctly, that "it is perfectly obvious from this that David was not quite clear as to Saul's intentions," though he upsets his own previous assertion, that after what David had gone through, he could never think of sitting again at the king's table as he had done before. — Ver. 8. David made sure that Jonathan would grant this request on account of his friendship, as he had brought him into a covenant of Jehovah with himself. David calls the covenant of friendship with Jonathan (ch. xviii. 3) a covenant of Jehovah, because he had made it with a solemn invocation of Jehovah. But in order to make quite sure of the fulfilment of his request on the part of Jonathan, David added, " But if there is a fault in me, do thou kill me ('"1^^ used to strengthen the suffix) ; for ichy loilt thou bring me to thy father ? " sc. that he may put me to death. — Ver. 9. Jonathan replied, " This be far from thee!" sc. that I should kill thee, or deliver thee up to my father. '^Y-^ points back to what precedes, as in ver. 2. " But ("'S after a previous negative assertion) if I certainly discover that evil is determined by my father to come upon thee, and I do not tell it thee^^ sc. " may God do so to me," etc. The words are to be understood as an asseveration on oath, in which the formula of an oath is to be supplied in thought. This view is apparently a more correct one, on account of the cop. 1 before VO, than to take the last clause as a question, " Shall I not tell it thee ? " — Ver. 10. To this friendly assurance David replied, " Who will tell me ? " sc. how thy father expresses himself concerning me ; " or what will thy father answer thee roughly ? " sc. if thou shouldst CHAP. XX. 12-23. 209 attempt to do it thyself. This is the correct explanation given by De "Wette and Maurer. Gesenius and Thenius, on the con- trary, take iX in the sense of " if perchance." But this is evi- dently incorrect ; for even though there are certain passages in which ix may be so rendered, it is only where some other case is supposed, and therefore the meaning or still lies at the foun- dation. |These questions of David were suggested by a correct estimate T)f the circumstances, namely, that Saul's suspicions would leave him to the conclusion that there was some under- standing between Jonathan and David, and that he would take steps in consequence to prevent Jonathan from making David acquainted with the result of his conversation with Saul. — Ver. 11. Before replying to these questions, Jonathan asked David to go with him to the field, that they might there fix upon the sign by which he would let him know, in a way in which no one could suspect, what was the state of his father's mind) Vers. 12-23. In the field, where they were both entirely free from observation, Jonathan first of all renewed his cove- nant with David, by vowing to him on oath that he would give him information of his father's feelings towards him (vers. 12, 13) ; and then entreated him, with a certain presentiment that David would one day be king, even then to maintain his love towards him and his family for ever (vers. 14-16) ; and lastly, he made David swear again concerning his love (ver. 17), and then gave him the sign by which he would communicate the promised information (vers. 18-23). — Vers. 12 and 13a are connected. Jonathan commences with a solemn invocation of God : ^^ Jehovah, God of IsraelV and thus introduces his oath. We have neither to supply "Jehovah is witness" nor "as truly as Jehovah liveth" as some have suggested. " When I inquire of my father about this time to-morrow, the day after to-morrow (a concise mode of saying 'to-morrow or the day after'), and behold it is (stands) well for David, and then I do not send to thee and make it knoxon to thee, Jehovah shall do so to Jonathan" etc. w'' The Lord do sq," etc., the ordinary formula used in an oath : see ch. xiv. 44). ) The other case is then added without an adversative particle : " If it should please my father evil against thee {lit. as regards evil), 1 will make it known to thee, and let thee go, that thou mayest go in peace ; and Jehovah be with thee, as He has been with my father" In this wish there is o 210 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. expressed the presentiment that David would one day occupy that place in Israel which Saul occupied then, i.e. the throne^ — ^In vers. 14 and 15 the Masoretic text gives no appropriate meaninff. Luther's renderin£j, in which he follows the Rabbins and takes the first N?1 (ver. 14) by itself, and then completes the sentence from the context (" but if I do it not, show me no mercy, because I live, not even if I die"), contains indeed a certain permissible sense when considered in itself; but it is hardly reconcilable with what follows, " and do not tear away thy compassion for ever from my house.^^ The request that he would show no compassion to him (Jonathan) even if he died, and yet would not withdraw his compassion from his house for ever, contains an antithesis which would have been expressed most clearly and unambiguously in the words themselves, if this had been really what Jonathan intended to say. De Wette's rendering gives a still more striking contradiction : " But let not (Jehovah be with thee) if I still live, and thou showest not the love of Jehovah to me, that I die not, and thou luiihdraioest not thy love from my house for ever^ There is really no other course open than to follow the Syriac and Arabic, as Maurer, Thenius, and Ewald have done, and change the ^\ in the first two clauses of ver. 14 into vl or N^l, according to the analogy of the form ^h (ch. xiv. 30), and to render the passage thus : *•' And mayest thou, if I still live, mayest thou show to me the favour of the Lord, and not if I die, not withdraw thy favour from my house for ever, not even (N^l) when Jehovah shall cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth !" " The favour of Jehovah " is favour such as Jehovah shows to His people. The expression " when Jehovah shall cut off," etc., shows very clearly Jonathan's conviction that Jehovah would give to David a victory over all his enemies.j—Yer. 16. Thus Jonathan concluded a covenant with the house of David, namely, by bringing David to promise kindness to his family for ever. The word n^"}? must be supplied in thought to n'i3^., as in ch. xxii. 8 and 2 Chron. vii. 18. ^^ And Jehovah required it (what Jonathan had predicted) at the hand of David! s enemies^ Understood in this manner, the second clause contains a remark of the historian himself, namely, that Jonathan's words were really fulfilled in due time. The traditional rendering of ^^^ as a relative preterite, with löK CHAP. XX. 12-23. 211 understood, "and said, Let Jehovah take vengeance,^' is not only precluded by the harshness of the introduction of the word "saying," but still more by the fact, that if "I0^< (saying) is introduced between the copula vav and the verb ^^.'^, the perfect cannot stand for the optative ^^2, as in Josh. xxii. 23. — Ver. 17. '^ And Jonathan adjured David again hy his love to him, because he loved him as his own soul" (cf. ch. xviii. 1, 3) ; i.e. he once more implored David most earnestly with an oath to show favour to him and his house. — Vers. 18 sqq. He then discussed the sign with him for letting him know about his father's state of mind : " To-morrow is new moon, and thou wilt be missed, for thy seat will be empty^^ sc. at Saul's table (see at ver. 5). " And on the third day come doicn quickly (from thy sojourning place), and go to the spot ivhere thou didst hide thyself on the day of the deed, and place thyself by the side of the stone Ezel" The first words in this (19th) verse are not without difficulty. The meaning " on the third day" for the verb ^}'^ cannot be sustained by parallel passages, but is fully established, partly by IT'K'pE'n, the third day, and partly by the Arabic usage (yid. Ges. Thes. s. r.). ^NO after 1"}^^ Ut. "go violently doion," is more striking still. Nevertheless the cor- rectness of the text is not to be called in question, since riK'j'K^ is sustained by Tpiaaevaei, in the Septuagint, and 'IKÖ 11^ by descende ergo festinus in the Vulgate, and also by the rendering in the Chaldee, Arabic, and Syriac versions, " and on the third day thou wilt be missed still more," which is evidently merely a conjecture founded upon the context. The meaning of nb^yon Di''n is doubtful. Gesenius, De Wette, and Maurer render it " on the day of tlie deed," and understand it as re- ferring to Saul's deed mentioned in ch. xix. 2, viz. his design of killing David ; others render it " on the day of business," i.e. the working day (Luther, after the LXX. and Vulgate), but this is not so good a rendering. The best is probably that of Thenius, "on the day of the business" (which is known to thee). Nothing further can be said concerning the stone Ezel than that Ezel is a proper name. — Ver. 20. " And I will shoot off three arrows to the side of it (the stone Ezel), to shoot for me at {he mark," i.e. as if shooting at the mark. The article attached to C'^nn is either to be explained as denoting that the historian assumed the thing as already well known, or on the supposition 212 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. that Jonathan went to the field armed, and when giving the sign pointed to the arrows in his quiver. In the word rrnv the Raphe indicates that the sufRx of n— is not a mere toneless n^ although it has no mappik, having given up its strong breath- ing on account of the harsh V sound. — Ver. 21. "And, behold (narij directing attention to Mdiat follows as the main point), / will send the boy (saying), Go, get the arrows. If 1 shall say to the boy, Behold, the arrows are from thee hitherioards, fetch them ; then come, for peace is to thee, and it is nothing, as truly as Jehovah liveth^ — Ver. 22. "But if I say to the youth. Behold, the arrows are from thee farther off; then go, for Jehovah sendeth thee away^' i.e. bids thee flee. The appointment of this sign was just as simple as it was suitable to the purpose. — Ver. 23. This arrangement was to remain an eternal secret between them. " And (as for) the word that we have spoken, I and thou, behold, the Lord is between me and thee for erer," namely, a witness and judge in case one of us two should break the covenant (yid. Gen. xxxi. 48, 49). This is implied in the words, without there being any necessity to assume that IV had dropped out of the text. " The word" refers not merely to the sign agreed upon, but to the whole matter, including the renewal of the bond of friendship. Vers. 24-34. David thereupon concealed himself in the field, whilst Jonathan, as agreed upon, endeavoured to apologize for his absence from the king's table. — Vers. 24, 25. On the new moon's day Saul sat at table, and as always, nt his seat by the wall, i.e. at the top, just as, in eastern lands at the present day, the place of honour is the seat in the corner (see Harmar Beobachtungen ii. pp. QQ sqq.). " And Jonathan rose up, and Abner seated himself by the side of Saul, and David's place re- mained empty" The difficult passage, " And Jonathan rose up" etc., can hardly be understood in any other way than as signify- ing that, when Abner entered, Jonathan rose from his seat by the side of Saul, and gave up the place to Abner, in which case all that is wanting is an account of the place to which Jonathan moved. Every other attempted explanation is exposed to much graver difficulties. The suggestion made by Gesenius, that the cop. \ should be supplied before *133X, and 35^*1 referred to Jona- than (" and Jonathan rose up and sat down, and Abner (sat CHAP XX. 24-34. 213 down) by the side of Saul"), as in the Syriac, is open to this objection, that in addition to the necessity of supplying i, it is impossible to see why Jonathan should have risen up for the purpose of sitting down again. The rendering " and Jonathan came," which is the one adopted by Maurer and De Wette, cannot be philologically sustained; inasmuch as, although Dip is used to signify rise up, in the sense of the occurrence of impor- tant events, or the appearance of celebrated persons, it never means simply " to come." And lastly, the conjecture of Thenius, that QiJ*! should be altered into D"üi?)Ü, according to the senseless rendering of the LXX., '7rpoe(f)6aae rov ^lovddap, is overthrown by the fact, that whilst D^P does indeed mean to anticipate or come to meet, it never means to sit in front of, i.e. opposite to a person. — Ver. 26. On this (first) day Saul said nothing, sc. about David's absenting himself, "for he thought there /las (some- thing) happened to him, that he is not clean ; surely ("'S) he is not clean" {vid. Lev. xv. 16 sqq.; Deut, xxiii. 11). — Vers. 27 sqq. But on the second day, the day after the new moon {lit. the morroio after the neio moon, the second day : V^n is a nomina- tive, and to be joined to ""nM, and not a genitive belonging to ^^']), when David was absent from table again, Saul said to Jonathan, " Why is the son of Jesse not come to meat, neither yesterday nor to-day V^ Whereupon Jonathan answered, as arranged with David (compare vers. 28 and 29 with ver. 6). " And my brother, he hath commanded me," i.e. ordered me to come, njy as in Ex. vi. 13, and ''nSj the elder brother, who was then at the head of the family, and arranged the sacrificial meal. — Vers. 30, 31.|Saul was greatly enraged at this, and said to Jonathan, " Son of a perverse woman (O^yj is a participle, Niph. fem. from niy) of rebellion" — i.e. son of a perverse and rebellious woman (an insult offered to the mother, and there- fore so much the greater to the son), hence the meaning really is, " Thou perverse, rebellious fellow,"^-" do I not know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and to the sliame of thy mothers nakedness ? " in3, to choose a person out of love, to take pleasure in a person ; generally construed with 2 pers., here with ?, althougn many Codd. have 2 here also. " For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the earth, thou and thy kingdom (kingship, throne) ivill not stand." Thus(Saul evi- dently suspected David as his rival, who would either wrest the 214 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. government from him, or at any rate after his death from his son.) " Noio send and fetch him to me, for he is a child of death,' i.e. lie has deserved to die, and shall be put to death. — Vers. 32 sqq. When Jonathan replied, '■^ My father, why shall he die? what has he doneV Saul was so enraged that he hurled his Javelin at Jonathan (of. eh. xviii. 11). Thus Jonathan saw that his father had firmly resolved to put David to death, and rose up from the table in fierce anger, and did not eat that day ; for he was grieved concerning David, because his father had done him shame. ri73 is a substantive in the sense of unalter- able resolution, like the verb in ver. 9. ''Jtfn ^I'^il'"'^!''?, on the second day of the new moon or month. Vers. 35-42. The next morning Jonathan made David acquainted with what had occurred, by means of the sign agreed upon with David. The account of this, and of the meeting between Jonathan and David which followed, is given very concisely, only the main points being touched upon. In the morning (after what had occurred) Jonathan went to the field, in 1J^iJ3pj either " at the time agreed upon with David," or " to the meeting with David," or perhaps better still, " according to the appointment (agreement) with David," and a small boy with him. — Ver. 36. To the latter he said, namely as soon as they had come to the field. Run, get the arrows which I shoot. The boy ran, and he shot off the arrows, " to go out beyond him" i.e. so that the arrows flew farther than the boy had run. The form ^ifn for |*n only occurs in connection with disjunctive accents ; beside the present chapter (vers. 36, 37, 38, Chethihh) we find it again in 2 Kings ix. 24. The singular is used here with indefinite generality, as the historian did not consider it neces- sary to mention expressly, after what he had previously written, that Jonathan shot off three arrows one after another. — Ver. 37. When the boy came to the place of the shot arrow (i.e. to the place to which the arrow had flown), Jonathan called after him, *' See, the arrow is (lies) away from thee, farther off " and again, " Quickly, haste, do not stand still," that he might not see David, who was somewhere near ; and the boy picked up the arrow and came to his lord. The Chethihh ''VO? is evidently the original reading, and the singular is to be understood as in ver. 37 ; the Keri D''J:nn is an emendation, according to the meaning of the words. The writer here introduces the remark in ver. 39, CHAP. XX. 35-42. 215 that the boy knew nothing of what had been arranged Ijetween Jonathan and David. — Ver. 40. Jonathan then gave the boy his things (bow, arrows, and quiver), and sent him with them to the town, that he might be able to converse with David for a few seconds after his departure, and take leave of him unob- served.— Ver. 41. When the boy had gone, David rose (from his hiding-place) from the south side, fell down upon his face to the ground, and bowed three times (before Jonathan) ; they then kissed each other, and wept for one another, " till David wept strongli/" i.e. to such a degree that David wept very loud. 3J3n P^'NO, ^'- from the side of the south" which is the expression used to describe David's hiding-place, according to its direction in relation to the place where Jonathan was standing, has not been correctly rendered by any of the early translators except Aquila and Jerome. In the Septuagint, the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Arabic, the statement in ver. 19 is repeated, simply because the translators could not see the force of 333n ''^^^s although it is intelligible enough in relation to what follows, according to which David fled from thence southwards to Nob. — Ver. 42. All that is given of the conversation between the two friends is the parting word spoken by Jonathan to David : " Go in peace. What tve two have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying. The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever:'''' sc. let it stand, or let us abide by it. The clause contains an aposiopesis, which may be accounted for from Jonathan's deep emotion, and in which the apodosis may be gathered from the sense. For it is evident, from a comparison of ver. 23, that the expression " for ever" must be understood as forming part of the oath. — Ch. xxi. 1. David then set out upon his journey, and Jonathan returned to the town. This vei'se ought, strictly speaking, to form the conclusion of ch. xx.' The subject to ^' arose" is David; not because Jonathan was the last one spoken of (Thenius), but because the following words, " and Jonathan came," etc., are in evident antithesis to " he arose and went." ^ In our English version it does ; but in the Hebrew, -which is followed here, it forms the opening verse of ch. xxi. In the exposition of the follow- ing chapter it has been thought better to follow the numbering of the verses in our version rather than that of the original, although the latter is conformed to the Hebrew. — Tr. 216 the first book of samuel. David's flight to nob, and thence to gath. — CHAP. XXI. 2-16. After the information which David had received from Jonathan, nothing remained for him in order to save his life but immediate flight. He could not return to the prophets at Ramäh, where he had been miraculously preserved from the first outbreak of Saul's wrath, because they could not ensure him permanent protection against the death with which he was threatened. (^He therefore fled first of all to Nob, to Ahimelech the high priest, to inquire the will of God through him con- cerning his future courseVch. xxii. 10, 15), and induced him to give him bread and the sword of Goliath also, under the pre- text of having to perform a secret commission from the king with the greatest speed ; for which Saul afterwards took fearful vengeance upon the priests at Nob when he was made ac- quainted with the affair through the treachery of Doeg (vers. 1-9). David then fled to Gath to the Philistian king Achish ; but here he was quickly recognised as the conqueror of Goliath, and obliged to feign insanity in order to save his life, and then to flee still farther (vers. 10-15). The state of his mind at this time he poured out before God in the words of Ps. Ivi., lii., and xxxiv. Vers. 1—9. David at Nob. — The town of Ä^ob or Nobeh (unless indeed the form HDb stands for nai here and in ch. xxii. 9, and the n attached is merely n local, as the name is always written D: in other places : vid. ch. xxii. 11, 32 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 16 ; Isa. X. 32 ; Neh. xi. 32) was at that time a priests' city (ch. xxii. 19), in which, according to the following account, the tabernacle was then standing, and the legal worship carried on. According to Isa. x. 30, 32, it was between Anathoth {Anata) and Jerusalem, and in all probability it has been preserved in the village of el-Isaioiyeh, i.e. probably the village of Esau or Edom, which is midway between Anata and Jerusalem, an hour from the latter, and the same distance to the south-east of Gibeah of Saul (Tell el Phul), and which bears all the marks of an ancient place, partly in its dwellings, the stones of which date from a great antiquity, and partly in many marble columns which are found there {vid. Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerusalem ii. p. 720). Hence v. Raumer {Pal. p. 215, ed. 4) follows Kiepert CHAP. XXI. 1-9. 217 in the map which he has appöfÄed to Robinson's Biblical Re- searches, and set down - tifJS'^ic¥ as the ancient Nob, for which Robinson indeed searc'5ea'i'n'\ifiÄ(see Pal. ii. p. 150). Ahirae- lech, the son of Ahitub, most"^pift)bafcly the same person as Ahiah (ch. xiv. 3), was " tliei'fi^lHf'^i.^-Xh.Q high priest (see at ch. xiv. 3). When David GiÄie"tb'''Hlife,*4he priest "toeJit trem- bling to meet him" (nxii?? ■i"]|T;).with'^'^'in^iry, " Why art thou alone, and no one is with ^/ig6v!''''"^The ^riei^ected appearance of David, the son-in-Liw of the 'kitig,- >ith"b<^ any attendants, alarmed Ahimelech, who probabij ^imagined 'lÄf&t he had come with a commission from the king -vwiich vriügh't ftivolve him in danger. David had left the few seriTjnlä Tv'ho aceen. 4eßled by sexual inter- course (Lev. XV. 18). If they ,yere c^e^n at any rate in this respect, he would in suc^i a c^se of necessity depart from the Levitical law concerning the ^atiag of the shew-bread, for the sake of observing the higher pom|nandment of love to a neigh- bour (Lev. xix. 18 ; cf. Maf£t,.xu. S, 6, Mark ii. 25, 26).^— Ver. 5. David quieted h;m conceming this scruple, and said, " NaT/^ but women have been kept frpm us since yesterday and the day before." The ;ise of ^fjS '•3 may be explained from the fact, that in David's reply .'ne. paid more attention to the sense than to the form of the pri^^'s scruple, and expressed himself as concisely as possibl/e. The words, " if the young men have only kept themselves- from women," simply meant, if only they are not uncl^n ; and David replied. That is certainly not the case, but wonien have been kept from us ; so that Di< "'S has the meanipg btfi in this passage also, as it frequently has after a previous^^ negative, which is implied in the thought here as in 2/3;«ini. xiii. 33. " When I came out, the young men's things were ^oly (Levitically clean) ; and if it is an unholy ivay, it becomes isven holy tJixough the instilment." David does not say that the young men were clean when he came out (for the rendering given to Q''iy3D 7? in the Septuagint, wdvra to, TraiSdpia, is without any critical value, and is only a mistaken attempt to explain the word v3, which was unintelligible to the translator), but simply affirms that ^"^p D"'')y3n "»PS^ i.e., according to Luther's rendering (t/er Knaben Zeug ivar heilig), the young men's things (clothes, etc.) were holy. Qy3 does not mean merely vessels, arms, or tools, but also the dress (Deut. xxii. 5), or rather the clothes as well as such things as were most necessary to meet the wants of life. By the coitus, or strictly speaking, by the emissio seminis in connection with the coitus, not only were the persons themselves defiled, but also every article of clothing or leather upon which any of the semen fell (Lev. xv. 18) ; so that it was necessary for the purpose of purification that the things which a man had on should all be washed. David ex- plains, with evident allusion to this provision, that the young ^ When Mark (ii. 26) assigns this action to the days of Abiathar the high priest, the statement rests upon an error of memory, in which Ahime- lech is confounded with Abiathar. ^. XXI. 1-9. 219 men's things were hofy| tt'ei^fcerfeotly clean, for the purpose of assuring the priest that' th«nB .wasi mot the smallest Levitical uncleanness attaching to'lheaiii The 'ejause which follows is to be taken as conditional, an(:l,aiS;Äi.ppo^iiig a possible case : " aiid if it is an unholy imy^ 'H'l'Sy«" tin» hJ'äy:ltl\at David was going with his young men, i.e. his' pur(afa80>}oaTi [enterprise, by which, however, we are not to underfef a»flJ : Ifis iifecjuest of holy bread from Ahimelech, but the performänff^^iiüielking's commission of which he had spoken. "'S ^^\ Zttilb^'asilubsi^there is) also that, = moreover there is also the fact, thatiitiibelcoijiiflfi holy through the instrument; i.e., as O. v. Gerlach^hasxlorffdblily explained it, " on the supposition of the important vbf^l mba«^ upon which David pretended to be sent, through me laa ailil^JBUiissajdor of the anointed of the Lord," in which, at any raJt^-rialwtW meaning really was, "the way was sanctified beforef'^-od^ whestt.he, as His chosen servant, the preserver of the trde Jfeikn^idbm. ©f God in Israel, went to him in his extremity^ Tliityvf/in^'tHe' sense of instrument is also applied to men, is evident itorfi iJAi xiiii 5 and Jer. 1. 25.— Ver. 6. The priest then gav% him^wbaU^wae) holy, namely the shew-loaves " that were takenkifioM h'efoii Jehovah,'^ i.e. from the holy table, upon which they Jhlad'lain before Jehovah for seven days (yid. Lev. xxiv. 6-9).-^-eIh ver. 7 there is a parenthetical remark introduced, which was of great importance in relation to the consequences of this occurrence. [There at the sanctuary there was a man of Saul's servants, *ip3, i.e. " kept back (shut off) before Jehovah ;" i.e. at the sanc- tuary of the tabernacle, either for the sake of purification or as a proselyte, who wished to be received into the religious com- munion of Israel, or because of supposed leprosy, according to Lev. xiii. 4. His name was Doegthe Edomite, D''i;in "i"'3X, " the strong one (i.e. the overseer) o/ fÄß herdsmen of Saul."} — Ver. 8. ^ The Septuagint translators have rendered these words iiif/,av rdi flfAiövovt;, " feeding the mules of Saul ;" and accordingly in ch. xxii. 9 also they have changed Saul's servants into mules, in accordance with which Theuius makes Doeg the upper herdsman of Saul. But it is very evident that the text of the LXX. is nothing more than a subjective interpreta- tion of the expression before us, and does not presuppose any other text, from the simple fact that all the other ancient versions are founded upon the Hebrew text both here and in ch. xxii. 9, including even the Vulgate (potentissiTmis pastorum) ; and the clause contained in some of the MSS. of the Vulgate (hie pascebat nmlas Saul) is nothing more than a gloss that baa ■'-■4" 220 THE FIRST BOOK^P SAMUEL. David also asked Aliimeleeh 'whother he had not a sw rd or a javelin at hand ; "/or / have iieiihets hvught my sword nor my (other) weapons loith me, because the affair of the king was press- ing,^' i.e. very urgent, l/inj, aTr.Xey., literally, compressed. — Ver. 9. The priest replied^, that tlieire was only the sword of Goliath, whom David slew in the terebjiuth valley (eh. xvii. 2), wrapped up in a cloth hanging behind the epliod (the high priest's shoulder- dress), — a sign of 'the -great worth attached to this dedicatory offering. He could takfe' that. David accepted it, as a weapon of greater value to him than any other, because he had not only taken this swoixl as b«oty from the Philistine, hut had cut off the head o£ Goliath ^vith it (see ch. xvii. 51). When and how this sword h^d llShjffe into the tabernacle is not known (see the remarks on ch.^/^ii. 54). The form ni? for nT3 is only met with hare.' On -the Pisica, see at Josh. iv. 1. Vers.' violas. David with Achish at Gath. — David fled from Nob t/vJ^'Achish of /Gath. This Phihstian king is called Ahimel&iiJi in the heading of Ps. xxxiv., according to the stand- ing/-title of the" Philistian princes at Gath. The fact that David fled at' once out of the land, and that to the Philistines at Gath, may be accounted for from the great agitation into which he had been thrown by the information he had received from Jonathan concerning Saul's implacable hatred. As some years had passed since the defeat of Goliath, and the con- queror of Goliath was probably not personally known to many of the Philistines, he might hope that he should not be recog- nised in Gath, and that he might receive a welcome thei'e with his few attendants, as a fugitive who had been driven away by Saul, the leading foe of the Philistines.^ But in this he crept in from the Itala ; and this is still more obvious in ch. xxii. 9, where 3S3 Nim is applicable enough to il^y, but is altogether unsuitable in con- nection with "»TiQ, since 2SJ is no more applied in Hebrew to herdsmen or keepers of animals, than we should think of speaking of presidents of asses, horses, etc. Moreover, it is not till the reign of David that we read of mules being used as riding animals by royal princes (2 Sam. xüi. 29, xviii. 9) ; and they are mentioned for the first time as beasts of burden, along with asses, camels, and oxen, in 1 Chron. xii. 40, where they are said to have been employed by the northern tribes to carry provisions to Hebron to the festival held at the recognition of David as king. Before David's time the sons of princes rode upon asses (viel. Judg. x. 4, xii. 14). ^ This removes the objection raised by modern critics to the historical *KV*tH>4>; x-m 10-15. 221 was mi; taken. He \v^.rec(i||Bi^edi at once by the conrtiers of Achish. They said to tli!eiEq)i'i-ncejii' Is not this David the king of the land ? Have they not»xmg%v'ciffiles, Saul hath slain his thou- sands, and David his ten tkomütiiJs ?< V '(cf . ch. xviii. 6, 7.) " King of the land" they call David^kbt.bteßäftise his anointing and divine election were known to theiti,:ixd< onj;account of his victorious deeds, which had thrown Sauianla^etfy.dnb® the shade. Whether they intended by these words to «eldb^iateODavid as a hero, or to point him out to their prince\;a« av ck-mgörßus man, cannot be gathered from the words themselves, iiAir;^ ©an the question be decided with certainty at all (iefeibh.:xitx. SS^. — Yer. 12. But David took these words to heaiJt,'änd-'wasin;-;^reat fear of Achish, lest he should treat him as aixenpmy^aiidikijililiim. In order to escape this danger, "he disgidsed'ilvis:iinderstahdtlng:.(i.e. pretended to be out of his mind) m their > ei/es'i(ke^.he?Drei. ^^k^' oonvtiers of Achish), behaved insanely under iheiFrlüx'Ms i(whwni>.'.they itried to hold him as a madman), scribbled upon 'ihi.thor-wC'yjtkj' anddet his spittle run down into his beard^ The sufiiüiöj'i^^'J^.ai- appa* rently superfluous, as the object, io^^TiN, follows immediateJy afterwards. But it maybe accounted for f ropj^ tl;i.e^ cirpumstan- tiality of the conversation of every-day life, a^. in "2 Sam.xir. 6, and (though these cases are not perfectly parallel) Ex. ii. 6, Prov. V. 22, Ezek. x, 3 (cf. Gesenius' Gramm. § 121, 6, Anm. 3). "in^ilj from nWj to make signs, i.e. to scribble. The Sept. credibility of the narrative before us, namely, that David would certainly not have taken refuge at once with the Philistines, but would only have gone to them in the utmost extremity (Thenius). It is impossible to see how the words " he fled that day for fear of Saul " (ver. 11) are to prove that this section originally stood in a different connection, and are only arbitrarily inserted here (Thenius). Unless we tear away the words in the most arbitrary manner from the foregoing word mn'l, they not only appear quite suitable, but even necessary, since David's journey to Abimelech was not a flight, or at all events it is not described as a flight in the text ; and David's flight from Saul really began with his departure from Nob. Still less can the legendary origin of this account be inferred from the fact that some years afterwards David really did take refuge with Achish in the Philistian country (ch. xxvii. and xxix.), or the conjecture sustained that this is only a distorted legend of that occurrence. For if the later sojourn of David with Achish be a historical fact, the popular legend could not possibly have assumed a form so utterly different as the account before us, to say nothing of the fact that this occurrence has a firm historical support in Ps. xxxiv. 1. 222 and Vulgate render it irv/xTrdvi^eiv,' impiyigehat, he drummed^ smote with his fists upon the wiings of the door, which would make it appear as if they ha«^ read ^in*! (from ^^^), which seems more suitable to the cön-ärtion of a madman whose saliva ran out of his mouth. r-^Yes's. 14, 15. By this dissimulation David escaped the danger which threatened him ; for Achish thought him mad, and wrJuH have nothing to do with him. " Wherefore do ye bring iiim to me ? Have I need of madmen, that ye have brought this; "man hither to rave against me ? Shall this man come into «ly ^houseV Thus Achish refused to receive him into his house. /But whether he had David taken over the border, or at any ?rate out of the town ; or whether David went away of hislbwn accord ; or whether he was taken away by his servants/ «and then hurried as quickly as possible out of the land of thet Philistines, is not expressly mentioned, as being of no importrxnee In relation to the principal object of the narra- tivGi Ali'^uat is stated is, that he departed thence, and escaped to tlie'cave AduUäm. ijaVid's wanderings in judah and moab. massacre of priests by saul. — chap. xxii. Vers. 1-5. Having been driven away by Achish, the Philis- tian king at Gath, David took refuge in the cave Adullam, where his family joined him. The cave Adullam is not to be sought for in the neig-hbourhood of Bethlehem, as some have inferred from 2 Sam. xxiii. 13, 14, but near the town Adidlam, which is classed in Josh. xv. 35 among the towns in the low- lands of Judah, and at the foot of the mountains ; though it has not yet been traced with any certainty, as the caves of Deir Dubban, of which Van de Velde speaks, are not the only large caves on the western slope of the mountains of Judah. When his brethren and his father's house, i.e. the rest of his family, heard of his being there, they came down to him, evidently because they no longer felt themselves safe in Bethlehem from Saul's revenge. The cave Adullam cannot have been more than three hours from Bethlehem, as Socoh and Jarmuth, which were near to Adullam, were only three hours and a half from Jerusalem (see at Josh. xii. 15). — Ver. 2. There a large num- ber of malcontents gathered together round David, viz. all who • «'HJ^P. XXII. 1-5. 223 were in distress, and all vfitp k^^ creditors, and^ll who were em- bittered in spirit) (bitter «f''«»5l'),ai\e. people who were dissatis- fied with the general statd ofikff^^-^^ ^^itj^ the government of Saul,— about four hundredhn0n;i^ljosö leader he became. David must in all probability hav^'StAfyi^.^j ^j^^.^ ^ considerable time. The number of those who wenCaiW 3,7^0, i^j^ soon amounted to six hundred men (xxiii. 13)/ WHc!) wL^j^ ^f^^ the most part brave and reckless, and who ripenedMötö)*^ ^^^ojc ^gn under the com- mand of David during his longiflighp J^^.list of the bravest of them is given in 1 Chron. xii.; Avitho^ .j^^j,^ compare 2. Sam. xxiii. 13 sqq. and 1 Chron. xi.iUß.-sqq.' _^'^qy^^ 3-5.(David proceeded thence to Mizpeh in Moab, 3fi''3J>onlaced his parents in safety with the king of the MoabiteS.^i-IJjc, 'smcestress Ruth was a Moabitess. Mizpeh: literally a watdi^to.^jj^Qj. mountain height commanding a very extensive profepeci<.^;^^.jjgj.Q \^ jg probably a proper name, belonging to a "Biouotaiu-ft^stji^ggg q^ the high land, which bounded the Arboth Mbtb-oh Jtuv^ 'njistern side of the Dead Sea, most likely on the mooiilMlins of'!4'J='äi^;m or Pisgah (Deut. xxxiv. 1), and which could easilivsJfeYeachöd from the country round Bethlehem, by crossing the J ordan near the point where it entered the Dead Sea.) As Davidsoartie to the king of Moab, the Moabites had probably taken 'posseägion of the most southerly portion of the eastern lands of theifeKafel- ites ; we may also infer this from the fact that, according tw -11 seen In the last year oi Davids XXI. 9 he IS called David's ,, . , . ' • i m r u ^^- „ 1 , ^ , .m the punishment which would tall reign he announced to hj.. ^ r i • • • v • xi 1 • r ^ , . «account oi his sin in numbering the upon him from God on , , ,. ., ^, ^ . people (2 Sam. xxiv. U s^^-); ^^^ .fading to 1 Chron. xx.x. 29 he also wrote thev^'^^^^^^V"^' Vlyonsequence of this admonition, David ,.;turned to Judah, and went into the wood rr ,7 , -.Jion on the mountains of Judah, which is Hareth, a woody re''=' . , , . . n ^ • ^ - ^ „„„„ .. , «cam, 'and the situation of which is unknown, never mentioned ?^',.^i-p..j ,^ i. A^« J- i. xL^e counsels oi (jod, David was not to seek tor According to-th i i i • i £ o t • 1 /We land ; not only that he might not be esti'anged from h's f «-f^erlaiid ^tid the people of Israel, which would have ■L xsed to, -his calling to be the king of Israel, but also that jjQ ,. ijnjght learn to trust entirely m the Lord as his only refuge ■"■:-jf^, apdiorti-ess.) Vers. 6-23. Murder of the Priests by Saul. — ^Vers. 6 sqq. When Saul heard that David and the men with him were known, i.e. that information had been received as to their abode or hiding-place, he said to his servants when they were gathered round him, " Hear" etc. The words, ^^ and Saul loas sitting at Giheali under the tamarisk upon the height,^^ etc., show that what follows took place in a solemn conclave of all the servants of Saul, who were gathered round their king to deliberate upon the more important affairs of the kingdom. This sitting took place at Gibeah, the residence of Saul, and in the open air " under the tamarisk."" ^^"J?, upon the height, not " under a grove at Eamah " (Luther) ; for Ramah is an appel- lative, and 'i^'^S, which belongs to ^'K'Kn nnri, is a more minute definition of the locality, which is indicated by the definite article {the tamarisk upon the height) as the well-known place where Saul's deliberative assemblies were held. From the king's address (" liear, ye Benjaminites ; will the son of Jesse also give you all fields and vineyards 'I") we perceive thatfSaul had chosen his immediate attendants from the members of hi own tribe, and had rewarded their services right royally. CHAP. XXII, 6-23. 225 ÖD?pp"D2 is placed first for the sake of emphasis, " You Ben- jaminites also,^' and not rather to Judahites, the members of his own tribe. The second ^^f^7 (before D^b*^) is not a dative ; but b merely serves to give greater prominence to the object which is placed at the head of the clause: As for all of you, will he make (you : see Ewald, § 310, a). — Ver. 8. " That you have all of you conspired against me, and no one informs me of it, since my son makes a covenant tvith the son of Jesse" J^^??, lit. at the making of a covenant. Saul may possibly have heard something of the facts related in ch. xx. 12-17 ; at the same time,(his words may merely refer to Jonathan's friendship with David, which was well known to him.) ■^/'^T^l, " and no one of you is grieved on my account . . . that my son has set my servant (David) as a Her in wait against me,'^ i.e. to plot against my life, and wrest the throne to himself. We may see from this, thatfSaul was carried by his suspicions very far beyond the actual facts.) " As at this day :" cf. Deut. viii. 18, etc. — Vers. 9, 10. The Edomite Doeg could not refrain from yielding to this appeal, and telling Saul what he had seen when staying at Nob ; namely, that Ahimelech had inquired of God for David, and given him food as well as Goliath's sword. For the fact itself, see ch. xxi. 1-10, where there is no reference indeed to his inquiring of God ; though it certainly took place, as Ahimelech (ver. 15) does not disclaim it. Doeg is here designated .3SfJ, " the superintendent of Saul's servants," so that apparently yhe had been invested with the office of marshal of the court.] — Vers. 11 sqq. On receiving this information, Saul immediately summoned the priest Ahimelech and '^all his father s house" i.e. the whole priesthood, to Nob, to answer for what they had done. To Saul's appeal, " Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, hy giving him, bread?" u\.himelech, who was not conscious of any such crime, since David had come to him with a false pretext, and the priest had probably but very little knowledge of what took place at court, replied both calmly and worthily (ver. 14): ^^ And who of all thy servants is so faithful (proved, attested, as in Num. xii. 7) as David, and son-in-law of the king, and having access to thy private audience, and honoured in thy house?" The true ex- planation of ^riyp^P"''?? "ID may be gathered from a comparison of 2 Sam. xxiii. 23 and 1 Chron. xi. 25, where nyoK'p occurs P 226 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. again, as the context clearly shows, in the sense of a privy coun- cillor of the king, who hears his personal revelations and converses with him about them, so that it corresponds to our " audience." "11D, lit. to turn aside from the way, to go in to any one, or to look after anything (Ex. ill. 3 ; Ruth iv. 1, etc.) ; hence in the passage before us " to have access," to be attached to a person. This is the explanation given by Gesenius and most of the modern expositors, whereas the early translators entirely mis- understood the passage, though they have given the meaning correctly enough at 2 Sam. xxiii. 23. /But if this was the relation in which David stood to Saul, — and he had really done so for a long time, — there was nothing wrong in what the high priest had done for him ; but he had acted according to the best of his knowledge, and quite conscientiously as a faithful subject of the king. Ahimelech then added still further (ver 15) : '^ Did I then begin to inquire of God for him this day?" i.e. was it the first time that I had obtained the decision of God for David concerning Important enten^rlses, which he had to carry out in the service of the king I i " Far be from me" sc. any conspiracy against the king, like that of which I am ac- cused. " Let not the king lay it as a burden upon thy servant, my whole father s house (the omission of the cojj. 1 before rC^'Paa may be accounted for from the excitement of the speaker) ; for thy servant knows not the least of all this." riNrbaa, of all that Saul had charged him with. — Vers. 16, 17. Notwithstanding this truthful assertion of his Innocence, Saul pronounced sentence of death,] not only upon the high priest, but upon all the priests at Nob, and commanded his D^yj, *.' runners," i.e. halberdiers, to put the priests to death, because, as he declared in his wrath, " their hand is with David (i.e. because they side with David), and because they knew that he fled and did not tell me." Instead of the Chethibh i^TSI, It is probably more correct to read ""PIX, according to the Kai, although the Chethibh may be accounted for if necessary from a sudden transition from a direct to an indirect form of ad- dress: "and (as he said) had not told him." This sentence was so cruel, and so nearly bordering upon madness, that the halberdiers would not carry It out, but refused to lay hands upon "the priests of Jehovah." — Ver. 18. Saul then com- manded Doeg to cut down the priests, and he at once per- CHAP. XXII. 6-23. 22? formed the bloody deed. On tlie expression "wearing the linen epJiod" compare the remarks at ch. ii. 18. (The allusion to the priestly clothing, like the I'epetition of tne expression "priests of Jehovah,^' serves to bring out into its true light the crime of the bloodthirsty Saul and his executioner Doeg. The very dress which the priests wore, as the consecrated servants of Jehovah, ought to have made them shrink from the commis- sion of such a murderA— Ver. 19. [But not content with even this revenge, Saul had the whole city of Nob destroyed, like a city that was laid under the ban (vid. Deut. xiii. 13 sqq.). So completely did Saul identify his private revenge with the cause of Jehovah, that he avenged a supposed conspiracy against his own person as treason against Jehovah the God-king.J— Vers. 20-23. The only one of the whole body of priests who escaped this bloody death was a son of Ahimelech, named Abiathar, who "ßed after David" i.e. to David the fugitive, and in- formed him of the barbarous vengeance which Saul had taken upon the priests of the Lord. Then David recognised and confessed his guilt. " / Jcnew that day that the Edomite Doeg was there, that he {i.e. that as the Edomite Doeg was there, he) would tell Said : I am the cause of all the souls of thy father s house" i.e. of their death. 22D is used here in the sense of being the cause of a thing, which is one of the meanings of the verb in the Arabic and Talmudic {yid. Ges. Lex. s.v.). "Stay with me, fear not; for he who seeks my life seeks thy life : for thou art safe with me." The abstract mishmereth, protection, keeping (Ex. xii. 6, xvi. 33, 34), is used for the concrete, in the sense of protected, well kept. (The thought is the follow- ing : As no other is seeking thy life than Saul, who also wants to kill me, thou mayest stay with me without fear, as I am sure of divine protection. David spoke thus in the firm belief that the Lord would deliver him from his foe, and give him the kingdom. The action of Saul, which had just been reported to him, could only strengthen him in this belief, as it was a sign of the growing hardness of Saul, which must accele- rate his destruction.) 228 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. DAVID DELIVERS KEILAH. HE IS BETRAYED BY THE ZIPHITE3, AND MARVELLOUSLY SAVED FROM SAUL IN THE DESERT OF MAON. — CHAP. XXIII. The following events show how, on the one hand, the Lord gave pledges to His servant David that he would eventually become king, but yet on the other hand plunged him into deeper and deeper trouble, that He might refine him and train him to be a king after His own heart. Saul's rage against the priests at Nob not only drove the high priest into David's camp, but procured for David the help of the " light and right" of the high priest in all his undertakings. Moreover, after the prophet Gad had called David back to Judah, an attack of the Phili- stines upon Keilah furnished him with the opportunity to show himself to the people as their deliverer. And although this enterprise of his exposed him to fresh persecutions on the part of Saul, who was thirsting for revenge, he experienced in con- nection therewith not only the renewal of Jonathan's friendship on this occasion, but a marvellous interposition on the part of the faithful covenant God. Vers. 1-14. Eescue of Keilah. — After his return to the mountains of Judah, David received intelligence that Phili- stines, i.e. a marauding company of these enemies of Israel, were fighting against Keilah, and plundering the threshing-floors, upon which the corn that had been reaped was lying ready for threshing. Keilah belonged to the towns of the lowlands of Judah (Josh. xv. 44) ; and although it has not yet been dis- covered, was certainly very close to the Philistian frontier. — Ver. 2. After receiving this information, David inquired of the Lord (through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest) whether he should go and smite these Philistines, and received an affirmative answer, — Vers. 3-5. But his men said to him, " Behold, here in Judah we are in fear (i.e. are not safe from Saul's pursuit) ; how shall we go to Keilah against the ranks of the Philistines ?" In order, therefore, to infuse couraoje into them, he inquired of the Lord again, and received the assurance from God, " / will give the Philistines into thy hand^ He then proceeded with his men, fought against the Philistines, drove off their cattle, inflicted a severe defeat upon them, and thus CHAP. XXIII. 1-14. 229 delivered the inhabitants of Keilah. In ver. 6 a supplementary remark is added in explanation of the expression " inquired of Hie Lordy^ to the effect that, when Abiathar fled to David to Keilah, the ephod had come to him. The words " to David to Keilah " are not to be understood as signifying that Abiathar did not come to David till he was in Keilah, but that when he fled after David (ch. xxii. 20), he met with him as he was already preparing for the march to Keilah, and immediately proceeded with him thither. For whilst it is not stated in ch. xxii. 20 that Abiathar came to David in the wood of Hareth, but the place of meeting is left indefinite, the fact that David had already inquired of Jehovah {i.e. through the oracle of the high priest) with reference to the march to Keilah, compels us to assume that Abiathar had come to him before he left the mountains for Keilah. So that the brief expression " to David to Keilah," which is left indefinite because of its brevity, must be interpreted in accordance with this fact. — Vers. 7-9. As soon as Saul received intelligence of David's mai'ch to Keilah, he said, '' God has rejected him (and delivered him) into my hand." *i|^ does not mean simply to look at, but also to find strange, and treat as strange, and then absolutely to reject (Jer. xix. 4, as in the Arabic in the fourth conjugation). This is the meaning here, where the construction with '"'7^? is to be under- stood as a pregnant expression : " rejected and delivered into my hand" (yid. Ges. Lex. s.v.). The early translators have ren- dered it quite correctly according to the sense "»^O, iriirpaKev, tradidit, without there being any reason to suppose that they read •"•59 instead of "I33, " J^qj- ]iß hath shut himself in, to come (= coming, or by coming) into a city with gates and bolts." — Ver. 8. He therefore called all the people (i.e. men of war) together to war, to go down to Keilah, and to besiege David and his men. — Vers. 9 sqq. But David heard that Saul was preparing mischief against him (lit. forging, ^^y}\}, from ti'"]n : Prov. iii. 29, vi. 14, etc.), and he inquired through the oracle of the high priest whether the inhabitants of Keilah would deliver him up to Saul, and whether Saul would come down ; and as both questions were answered in the affirmative, he departed from the city with his six hundred men, before Saul carried out his plan. It is evident from vers. 9-12, that when the will of God was sought through the Urim and Thummim, the person 230 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. making the inquiry placed the matter before God in prayer, and received an answer ; but always to one particular question. For when David had asked the two questions given in ver. 11, he received the answer to the second question only, and had to ask the first again (ver. 12). — Ver. 13. " They loent xohither- soever they could go^' (lit. " they wandered about where they wandered about"), i.e. wherever they could go without danger. — Ver. 14. David retreated into the desert (of Judali), to the mountain heights (that were to be found there), and remained on the mountains in the desert of Ziph. The ^'desert of Judair is the desert tract between the mountains of Judah and the Dead Sea, in its whole extent, from the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah to the Wady Fikreh in the south (see at Josh. XV. 61). Certain portions of this desert, however, received different names of their own, according to the names of dif- ferent towns on the border of the mountains and desert. The desert of Ziph was that portion of the desert of Judah which was near to and surrounded the town of Ziph, the name of which has been retained in the ruins of Tell Zif, an hour and three-quarters to the south-east of Hebron (see at Josh. xv. 55). — Ver. 146. " And Saul sought him all the days, but God de- livered him not into his hand^ This is a general remark, intended to introduce the accounts which follow, of the various attempts made by Saul to get David into his power. ^^ All the days," i.e. as long as Saul lived. Vers. 15-28. David in the Deserts of Ziph and Maon. — The history of David's persecution by Saul is introduced in vers. 15-18, with the account of an attempt made by the noble- minded prince Jonathan, in a private interview with his friend David, to renew his bond of friendship with him, and strengthen David by his friendly words for the sufferings that yet awaited him. Vers. 15, 16 are to be connected together so as to form one period : " Wlien David saw that Saul was come out . . . and David was in the desert of Ziph, Jonathan rose up and loent to David into the wood." '^^1'^, from ^P, with n paragogic, sig- nifies a wood or thicket ; here, however, it is probably a proper name for a district in the desert of Ziph that was overgrown with wood or bushes, and where David was stopping at that time. " There is no trace of this wood now. The land lost its CHAP. XXIII. 15-28. 231 ornament of trees centuries ago through the desolating hand of man" (v. de Velde). " And strengthened his hand in God,^* i.e. strengthened his heart, not by supplies, or by money, or any subsidy of that kind, but by consolation drawn from his innocence, and the promises of God (yid. Judg. ix. 24 ; Jer. xxiii. 14). ^' Fear not," said Jonathan to him, "for the hand of Saul my father will not reach thee ; and thou loilt become king over Israel, and I unll be the second to thee ; and Saul my father also knoics that it is so."' Even though Jonathan had heard nothing from David about his anointing, he could learn from David's course thus far, and from his ovi^n father's conduct, that David would not be overcome, but would possess the sovereignty after the death of Saul. Jonathan expresses here, as his firm conviction, what he has intimated once before, in ch. xx. 13 sqq. ; and with the most loving self-denial entreats David, when he shall be king, to let him occupy the second place in the king- dom. It by no means follows from the last words (" Saul my father hwiceth"), that Saul had received distinct information concernino; the anointing of David, and his divine callino; to be king. The words merely contain the thought, he also sees that it will come. The assurance of this must have forced itself involuntarily upon the mind of Saul, both from his own rejec- tion, as foretold by Samuel, and also from the marvellous success of David in all his undertakings. — Ver. 18. After these encouraging words, they two made a covenant before Jehovah : i.e. they renewed the covenant which they had already made by another solemn oath ; after which Jonathan returned home, but David remained in the wood. The treachery of the Ziphites forms a striking contrast to Jonathan's treatment of David. They went up to Gibeah to betray to Saul the fact that David was concealed in tbe wood upon their mountain heights, and indeed " upon the hill Hachilah, ivhich lies to the south of the loaste." The hill of Ziph is a flattened hill standing by itself, of about a hundred feet in height. " There is no spot from which you can obtain a better view of David's wanderings backwards and forwards in the desert than from the hill of Ziph, which affords a true panorama. The Ziphites could see David and his men moving to and fro in the mountains of the desert of Ziph, and could also perceive how he showed himself in the distance upon the 232 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. hill Hachilah on the south side of Ziph (which lies to the right by the desert) ; whereupon they sent as quickly as possible to Saul, and betrayed to him the hiding-place of his enemy" (v. de Velde, ii. pp. 104-5). Jeshimon does not refer here to the waste land on the north-eastern coast of the Dead Sea, as in Num. xxi. 20, xxiii. 28, but to the western side of that sea, which is also desert. — Ver. 20 reads literally thus : " And now, according to all the desire of thy soul, 0 hing, to come down (from Gibeah, which stood upon higher ground), come down, and it is in us to deliver him (David) into the hand of the king." — Ver. 21. For this treachery Saul blessed them : " Be blessed of the Lord, that ye have compassion upon me." In his evil con- science he suspected David of seeking to become his murderer, and therefore thanked God in his delusion that the Ziphites had had compassion upon him, and shown him David's hiding- place. — Ver. 22. In his anxiety, however, lest David should escape him after all, he charged them, " Go, and give still further heed (P^n without 37, as in Judg. xii. 6), and reconnoitre and look at his place where his foot cometh (this simply serves as a more precise definition of the pronominal suffix in iöipp^ his place), who hath seen him there {sc. let them inquire into this, that they may not be deceived by uncertain or false reports) : for it is told me that he dealeth very suhtilly." — Ver. 23. They were to search him out in every corner (the object to "^V^, must be supplied from the context). " And come ye again to me with the certainty (i.e. when you have got some certain intelli- gence concerning his hiding-place), that I may go with you; and if he is in the land, I will search him cut among all the thousands {i.e. families) of Judah." — Ver. 24. With this answer the Ziph- ites arose and " went to Ziph before Saul " (who would speedily follow with his warriors) ; but David had gone farther in the meantime, and was with his men " in the desert of Maon, in the steppe to the south of the wilderness." Maon, now Mam, is about three hours and three-quarters S.S.E. of Hebron (see at Josh. XV. 55), and therefore only two hours from Ziph, from which it is visible. " The table-land appears to terminate here ; nevertheless the principal ridge of the southern mountains runs for a considerable distance towards the south-west, whereas towards the south-east the land falls off more and more into a lower table-land." This is the Arabah or steppe on the right CHAP. XXIV. 1-8. _ 233 of tlie wilderness (v. de Velde, ii. pp. 107-8). — Ver. 25. Having been informed of the arrival of Saul and his men (warriors), David went down the rock, and remained in the desert of Maori. " The rock^' is probably the conical mountain of 3fa{n (Maori), the top of which is now surrounded with ruins, pro- bably remains of a tower (Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 194), as the rock from which David came down can only have been the mountain (ver. 26), along one side of which David went with his men whilst Saul and his warriors went on the other, namely when Saul pursued him into the desert of Maon. — Vers. 26, 27. " And David ivas anxiously concerned to escape from Saul, and Saul and his men were encircling David and his men to seize them ; but a messenger came to Saul. . . . Then Saul turned from pursuing David^ The two clauses, " for Saul and his men" (ver. 26?*), and "there came a messenger" (ver. 27), are the circumstantial clauses by which the situation is more clearly defined : the apodosis to ^H "'n^1_ does not follow till ^^Jl in ver. 28. The apodosis cannot begin with ^^^ppi, because the verb does not stand at the head. David had thus almost inextricably fallen into the hands of Saul ; but God saved him by the fact that at that very moment a messenger arrived with the intelli- gence, "Hasten and go (come), for Philistines have fallen into the land," and thus called Saul away from any further pursuit of David. — Ver. 28. From this occurrence the place received the name of Sela-hammahlehoth, " roch of smoothnesses,^^ i.e. of slipping away or escaping, from P?n, in the sense of being smooth. This explanation is at any rate better supported than " rock of divisions, i.e. the rock at which Saul and David were separated" (Clericus), since Pr'O does not mean to separate. DAVID SPARES SAUL IN THE CAVE. — CHAP. XXIV. Vers. 1-8. Whilst Saul had gone against the Philistines, David left this dangerous place, and went to the mountain heights of Engedi, i.e. the present Ain-jidy (goat-fountain), in the middle of the western coast of the Dead Sea (see at Josh. XV. 62), which he could reach from Maon in six or seven hours. The soil of the neighbourhood consists entirely of limestone; but the rocks contain a considerable admixture of chalk and flint. Round about there rise bare conical mountains, and 234 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. even ridges of from two to four hundred feet in height, which mostly run down to the sea. The steep mountains are inter- sected by wadys running down in deep ravines to the sea. " On all sides the country is full of caverns, which might then serve as lurking-places for David and his men, as they do for outlaws at the present day" (Rob. Pal. p. 203). — Vers. 1, 2. When Saul had returned from his march against the Phili stines, and was informed of this, he set out thither with three thousand picked men to search for David and his men in the wild-goat rocks. The expression " rocks of the loild goats " is probably not a proper name for some particular rocks, but a general term applied to the rocks of that locality on account of the number of wild goats and chamois that were to be found in all that region, as mountain goats are still (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 204). — Ver. 3. When Saul came to the sheep-folds by the way, where there was a cave, he entered it to cover his feet, whilst David and his men sat behind in the cave. V. de Velde (i?. ii. p. 74) supposes the place, where the sheep-folds by the roadside were, to have been the Wady Chareitun, on the south-west of the Frank mountain, and to the north-east of Tekoah, a very desolate and inaccessible valley. " Rocky, precipitous walls, which rise up one above another for many hundred feet, form the sides of this defile. Stone upon stone, and cliff above cliff, without any sign of being habitable, or of being capable of affording even a halting-place to anything but wild goats." Near the ruins of the village of Chareitun, hardly five minutes' walk to the east, there is a large cave or chamber in the rock, with a very narrow entrance entirely concealed by stones, and with many side vaults in which the deepest darkness reigns, at least to any one who has just entered the limestone vaults from the dazzling light of day. It may be argued in favour of the con- jecture that this is the cave which Saul entered, and at the back of which David and his men were concealed, that this cave is on the road from Bethlehem to Ain-jidy, and one of the largest caves in that district, if not the largest of all, and that, according to Pococke (JBeschr. des Morgenl. ii. p. 61), the Franks call it a labyrinth, the Arabs Elmaama, i.e. hiding- place, whilst the latter relate how at one time thirty thousand people hid themselves in it " to escape an evil wind," in all probabihty the simoom. The only difficulty connected with CHAP. XXIV. 8-16. 235 this supposition is the distance from Ain-jidy, namely about four or five German miles (fifteen or twenty English), and the nearness of Tekoah, according to which it belongs to the desert of Tekoah rather than to that of Engedi. " To cover his feet " is a euphemism according to most of the ancient versions, as in Judg. iii. 24, for performing the necessities of nature, as it is a custom in the East to cover the feet. It does not mean " to sleep," as it is rendered in this passage in the Peschito, and also by Michaelis and others ; for although what follows may seem to favour this, there is apparently no reason why any such euphemistic expression should have been chosen for sleep. " The sides of the cave :^' i.e. the outermost or farthest sides. — Yer. 4. Then David's men said to him, " See, this is the day of which Jehovah hath said to thee. Behold, I give thine enemy into thy hand, and do to him what seemeth good to thee" Although these words might refer to some divine oracle which David had received through a prophet. Gad for example, what follows clearly shows that David had received no such oracle ; and the meaning of his men was simply this, " Behold, to-day is the day when God is saying to thee : " that is to say, the speakers regarded the leadings of providence by which Saul had been brought into David's power as a divine intimation to David himself to take this opportunity of slaying his deadly enemy, and called this intimation a word of Jehovah. David then rose up, and cut off the edge of Sauls cloak privily. Saul had probably laid the meil on one side, which rendered it pos- sible for David to cut off a piece of it unobserved. — Yer. 5. But his heart smote him after he had done it ; i.e. his conscience reproached him, because he regarded this as an injury done to the king himself. — Yer. 6. With all the greater firmness, there- fore, did he repel the suggestions of his men : " Far be it to me from Jehovah (on Jehovah's account: see at Josh. xxii. 29), that (QX, a particle denoting an oath) I shoidd do such a thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, to stretch out my hand against him." These words of David show clearly enough that no word of Jehovah had come to him to do as he liked with Saul. — Yer. 7. Thus he kept back his people with words (V^^, verbis dilacere), and did not allow them to rise up against Saul, sc. to slay him. Yers. 8-16. But when Saul had gone out of the cave, David 236 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL went out, and called, " My lord Mng^^ that when the king looked round he might expostulate with him, with the deepest reverence, but yet with earnest words, that should sharpen his conscience as to the unfounded nature of his suspicion and the injustice of his persecution. " Why dost tJiou hearken to loords of meriy who say, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt ? Behold, this day thine eyes have seen that Jehovah hath given thee to-day into my hand in the cave, and they said (1P^, thought) to kill thee, and I spared thee :" lit. it (mine eye) spared thee (cf. Gen. xlv. 20, Deut. vii. 16, etc., which show that ''J''^ is to be supplied). — Ver. 11. To confirm what he said, he then showed him the lappet of his coat which he had cut off, and said, " My father, seeV In these words there is an expression of the childlike reverence and affection which David cherished towards the anointed of the Lord. " For that I cut off the lappet and did not kill thee, learn and see (from this) that (there is) not evil in my hand (i.e. that I do not go about for the purpose of injury and crime), and that I have not sinned against thee, as thou never- theless layest wait for my soul to destroy it." — Vers. 12, 13. After he had proved to the king in this conclusive manner that he had no reason whatever for seeking his life, he invoked the Lord as judge between him and his adversary: "Jehovah will avenge me upon thee, but my hand ivill not he against thee. As the proverb of the ancients C^iöHjpn is used collectively) says, Evil proceedeth from the evil, but my hand shall not be upon thee." The meaning is this : Only a wicked man could wish to avenge himself ; I do not. — Ver. 14. And even if he should wish to attack the king, he did not possess the power. This thought introduces ver. 14 : " After whom is the king of Israel gone out f After whom dost thou pursue ? A dead dog, a single flea y By these similes David meant to describe himself as a perfectly harmless and insignificant man, of whom Saul had no occasion to be afraid, and whom the king of Israel ought to think it beneath his dignity to pursue. A dead dog cannot bite or hurt, and is an object about which a king ought not to trouble him- self (cf. 2 Sam. ix. 8 and xvi. 9, where the idea of something contemptible is included). The point of comparison with a flea is the insignificance of such an animal (cf. ch. xxvi. 20).— Ver. 15. As Saul had therefore no good ground for persecuting David, the latter could very calmly commit his cause to the Ijord God, CHAP. XXIV. 16-22. 237 that He might decide it as judge, and deliver him out of the hand of Saul : " Let Him look at it, and conduct my cause" etc. Vers. 16-22 These words made an impi*ession upon Saul. David's conduct went to his heart, so that he wept aloud, and confessed to him : " Thou art more righteous tlian I, for thou hast shoion me good, and I (have shown) thee evil; and thou hast given me a proof of this to-day." — Ver. 19. ^' If a man meet tvith his enemy, xoill he send him (let him go) in peace'?" This sentence is to be regarded as a question, which requires a negative reply, and expresses the thought : When a man meets with an enemy, he does not generally let him escape without injury. But thou hast acted very differently towards me. This thought is easily supplied from the context, and what follows attaches itself to this : " The Lord repay thee good for what thou hast done to me this day" — Vers. 20, 21. This wish was expressed in perfect sincerity. David's behaviour towards him had con- quered for the moment the evil demon of his heart, and com- pletely altered his feelings. In this better state of mind he felt impelled even to give utterance to these words, '' / knoio that thou teilt be king, and the sovereignty will have perpetuity in thy hand." Saul could not prevent this conviction from forcing itself upon him, after his own rejection and the failure of all that he attempted against David ; and it was this which drove him to persecute David whenever the evil spirit had the upper hand in his soul. But now that better feelings had arisen in his mind, he littered it without envy, and merely asked David to promise on oath that he would not cut off his descendants after his death, and seek to exterminate his name from his father's house. A name is exterminated when the whole of the descendants are destroyed, — a thing of frequent occurrence in the East in connection with a change of dynasties, and one which occurred .again and again even in the kingdom of the ten tribes (vid. 1 Kings xv. 28 sqq., xvi. 11 sqq. ; 2 Kings x.). — Ver. 22. When David had sworn this, Saul returned home. But David remained upon the mountain heights, because he did not regard the passing change in Saul's feelings as likely to continue. n'l'iVian (translated " the hold") is used here to denote the mountainous part of the desert of Judah. It is different in ch. xxii. 5. 238 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. DEATH OF SAMUEL. NABAL AND ABIGAIL. — CHAP. XXV. Ver. 1. The death of Samuel is inserted here, because it occurred at that time. The fact that all Israel assembled to- gether to his burial, and lamented him, i.e. mourned for him, was a- sign that his labours as a prophet were recognised by the whole nation as a blessing for Israel. Since the days of Moses and Joshua, no man had arisen to whom the covenant nation owed so much as to Samuel, who has been justly called the reformer and restorer of the theocracy. They buried him " in his house at Ramah.'^ The expression " his house" does not mean his burial-place or family tomb, nor his native place, but the house in which he lived, with the court belonging to it, where Samuel was placed in a tomb erected especially for him. After the death of Samuel, David went down into the desert of Paran, i.e. into the northern portion of the desert of Arabia, which stretches up to the mountains of Judah (see at Num. X. 12) ; most likely for no other reason than because he could no longer find sufficient means of subsistence for himself and his six hundred men in the desert of Judah. Vers. 2-44. The following history of NahaVs folly, and of the wise and generous behaviour of his pious and intelligent wife Abigail towards David, shows how Jehovah watched over His servant David, and not only preserved him from an act of passionate excitement, which might have endangered his calling to be king of Israel, but turned the trouble into which he had been brought into a source of prosperity and salvation. Vers. 2-13. At Maoti, i.e. Main or the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. xv. 55), there lived a rich man (''i"'^, gi^eat through property and riches), who had his establishment at Carmel. riK^yOj work, occupation, then establishment, possessions {vid. Ex. xxiii. 16). Carmel is not the promontory of that name (Thenius), but the present Kurmicl on the mountains of Judah, scarcely half an hour's journey to the north-west of Maon (see at Josh. XV. 55). This man possessed three thousand sheep and a thousand goats, and was at the sheep-shearing at Car- mel. His name was Nahal (i.e. fool) : this was hardly his proper name, but was a surname by which he was popularly designated on account of his folly. His wife Abigail was " of good understanding^'' i.e. intelligent, ^^ and of beautiful figure ;^* CHAP. XXV. 2-13. 239 but the husband was "harsh and evil in his doings." He sprang from the family of Caleb. This is the rendering adopted by the Chaldee and Vulgate, according to the Keri "•373. The Chethihh is to be read 13/3, " according to his heart;" though the LXX. {ävOpciiiro'i kvvik6<;) and Joseph us, as well as the Arabic and Syriac, derive it from 373^ and under- stand it as referring to the dog-like, or shameless, character of the man. — Vers. 4, 5. When David heard in the desert (cf. ver. 1) that Nabal was shearing his sheep, which was generally accompanied with a festal meal (see at Gen. xxxviii. 12), he sent ten young men up to Carmel to him, and bade them wish him peace and prosperity in his name, and having reminded him of the friendly services rendered to his shepherds, solicit a present for himself and his people. Dixy )? p^^, ask him after his welfare, i.e. greet hinsuin a friendly manner (cf. Ex. xviii. 7). The word ''n? is obscure, and was interpreted by the early translators merely according to uncertain conjectures. The simplest explanation is apparently in vitam^ long life, understood as a wish in the sense of " good fortune to you " (Luther, Maurer, etc.) ; although the word '•n in the singular can only be shown to have the meaning life in connection with the formula used in oaths, ^tf'S? ''D, etc. But even if '•n must be taken as an adjective, it is impossible to explain ''H? in any other way than as an elliptical exclamation meaning " good fortune to the living man." For the idea that the word is to be connected with DJ^l.^frJ, "say to the living man," i.e. to the man if still alive, is overthrown by the fact that David had no doubt that Nabal was still living. The words which follow are also to be understood as a wish, " May thou and thy house, and all that is thine, be well !" After this salutation they were to proceed with the object of their visit: "And noxo I have heard that thou hast sheep-shearers. Now thy shepherds have been with us; we have done them no harm (DY3n, as in Judg. xviii. 7 : on the form, see Ges. § 53, 3, Anm. 6), and nothing was missed by them so long as they were in CarmeU' When living in the desert, David's men had associated with the shepherds of Kabal, rendered them various services, and protected them and their flocks against the southern inhabitants of the desert (the Bedouin Arabs) ; in return for which they may have given them food and information. Thus David proved himself a 240 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. protector of his people even in his banishment. I^Völl, "so may the young men (those sent by David) find favour in thine eyes ! for we have come to a good (i.e. a festive) day. Give, 1 pray, what thy hand findeth (i.e. as much as thou canst) to thy servant, and to thy son David," With the expression '^ thy son" David" claims Nabal's fatherly goodwill. So far as the fact itself is concerned, " on such a festive occasion near a town or village even in our own time, an Arab sheikh of the neighbour- ing desert would hardly fail to put in a word either in person or by message ; and his message both in form and substance would be only the transcript of that of David" (Robinson, Palestine, p. 201). — Ver. 9. David's messengers delivered their message to Nabal, ^ni3*1, " and sat down" sc. awaiting the fulfil- ment of their request. The rendering given by the Chaldee (^pDQ, cessaverunt loqui) and the Vulgate (siliceru7it) is less suitable, and cannot be philologically sustained. The Septua- gint, on the other hand, has koI aveTnjSrjcre, "and he (Nabal) sprang up," as if the translators had read Dj^Jl (vid. LXX. at ch. XX. 34). This rendering, according to which the word belongs to the following clause, gives a very appropriate sense, if only, supposing that Di^*l really did stand in the text, the origin and general adoption of ini:*1 could in any way be ex- plained.— Ver. 10. Nabal refused the petitioners in the most churlish manner : " Who is David ? who the son of Jesse f" i.e. what have I to do with David ? " There be many servants now- a-days who tear away every one from his master." Thus, in order to justify his own covetousness, he set down David as a vagrant who had run away from his master. — Ver. 11. ^^ And I should take my bread and my loater (i.e. my food and drink), and tny cattle, . . . and give them to men ivhom I do not know whence they areV^ ''^Oi??'! is a perfect with vav consec, and the whole sentence is to be taken as a question. — Vers. 12, 13. The messengers returned to David with this answer. The churlish reply could not fail to excite his anger. He therefore commanded his people to gird on the sword, and started with 400 men to take vengeance upon Nabal, whilst 200 remained behind with the things. Vers. 14-31. However intelligible David's wrath may appear in the situation in which he was placed, it was not right before God, but a sudden burst of sinful passion, which was CHAP. XXV. 14-3L 241 unseemly in a servant of God. By carrying out his intention, he would have sinned against the Lord and against His people. But the Lord preserved him from this sin by the fact that, just at the right time, Abigail, the intelligent and pious wife of Nabal, heard of the affair, and was able to appease the wrath of David by her immediate and kindly interposition. — Vers. 14, 15. Abigail heard from one of (Nabal's) servants what had taken place {T}^, to wish any one prosperity and health, i.e. to salute, as in ch. xiii. 10 ; and ^V^, from ^''V, to speak wrath fully: on the form, see at ch, xv. 19 and xiv. 32), and also what had been praiseworthy in the behaviour of David's men towards Nabal's shepherds ; how they had not only done them no injury, had not robbed them of anything, but had defended them all the while. " They were a xoall (i.e. a firm protection) round us by night and by day, as long as we were ivith them feeding the sheep," i.e. a wall of defence against attacks from the Bedouins living in the desert. — Ver. 17. ''And noiu,'^ continued the servant, " know and see what thou doest ; for evil is determined (cf. ch. xx. 9) against our master and all his house : and he (Nabal) is a wicked man, that one cannot address himJ^ — Vers. 18, 19. Then Abigail took as quickly as possible a bountiful present of provisions, — tioo hundred loaves, two bottles of wine, five prepared (i.e. slaughtered) sheep (n'lwy, a rare form for T\^V^V: see Ewald, § 189, a), five seahs (an ephah and two-thirds) of roasted grains (Kali: see ch. xvii. 17), a hundred Q"'p^V (dried grapes, i.e. raisin-cakes : Ital. simmuki), and two hundred fig-cakes (consisting of pressed figs joined together), — and sent these gifts laden upon asses on before her to meet David, whilst she herself followed behind to appease his anger by coming to meet him in a friendly manner, but without saying a word to her husband about what she intended to do. — Ver. 20. When she came down riding upon the ass by a hidden part of the mountain, David and his men came to meet her, so that she lighted upon them, inn "inp, a hidden part of the mountain, was probably a hollow between two peaks of a mountain. This would explain the use of the word *TV, to come down, with reference both to Abigail, who ap- proached on the one side, and David, who came on the other. — Vers. 21 and 22 contain a circumstantial clause introduced parenthetically to explain what follows : but David had said, Q 242 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Only for deception (i.e. for no other purpose than to be deceived in my expectation) have I defended all that belongs to this man (Nabal) in the desert, so that nothing of his was missed, and (for) he hath repaid me evil for good. God do so to the enemies of David, if I leave, etc. ; i.e. " as truly as God will punish the enemies of David, so certainly will I not leave till the morning light, of all that belongeth to him, one that pisseth against the wall." This oath, in which the punishment of God is not called down upon the swearer himself (God do so to me), as it generally is, but upon the enemies of David, is analogous to that in ch. iii. 17, where punishment is threatened upon the person addressed, who is there made to swear; except that here, as the oath could not be uttered in the ears of the person addressed, upon whom it was to fall, the enemies generally are mentioned instead of " to theeJ' There is no doubt, therefore, as to the correctness of the text. The substance of this im- precation may be explained from the fact that David is so full of the consciousness of fighting and suffering for the cause of the kingdom of God, that he discerns in the insult heaped upon him by Nabal an act of hostility to the Lord and the cause of His kingdom. The phrase "l^7? T^^^i mingens in parietem, is only met with in passages which speak of the destruction of a family or household to the very last man (viz., besides this passage, 1 Kings xiv. 10, xvi. 11, xxi. 21 ; 2 Kings ix. 8), and neither refers primarily to dogs, as Ephraem Syrus, Juda ben Karish, and others maintain ; nor to the lowest class of men, as Winer, Maurer, and others imagine ; nor to little boys, as L. de Dieu, Gesenius, etc., suppose ; but, as we may see from the explanatory clause appended to 1 Kings xiv. 10, xxi. 21, 2 Kings ix. 8, to every male {quemcumque masculi generis hominem : vid. Bochart, Hieroz. i. pp. 776 sqq., and Rödiger on Ges. Thes. pp. 1397-8). — Ver. 23 is connected with ver. 20. When Abigail saw David, she descended hastily from the ass, fell upon her face before him, bowed to the ground, and fell at his feet, saying, " Upon me, me, my lord, be the guilt ; allow thy handmaid to reveal the thing to thee." She takes the guilt upon herself, because she hopes that David will not avenge it upon her. — Ver. 25. She prayed that David would take no notice of Nabal, for he was what his name declared — a fool, and folly in him; but she (Abigail) had not seen the messengers CHAP. XXV. 14-31. 243 of David. " The prudent woman uses a good argument ; for a wise man should pardon a fool" (Seb. Schmidt). She then endeavours to bring David to a friendly state of mind by three arguments, introduced with nriyi (vers. 26, 27), before asking for forgiveness (ver. 28). She first of all pointed to the leadings of God, by which David had been kept from committing murder through her coming to meet him.^ "^s truly as Jehovah livethy and by the life of thy soul ! yea, the Lord hath kept thee, that thou earnest not into blood-guiltiness, and thy hand helped thee^* (i.e. and with thy hand thou didst procure thyself help). "IK^X, introducing her words, as in ch. xv. 20, lit. " as truly as thou livest, (so true is it) that," etc. In the second place, she points to the fact that God is the avenger of the wicked, by expressing the wish that all the enemies of David may become fools like Nabal ; in connection with which it must be observed, in order to understand her words fully, that, according to the Old Tes- tament representation, folly is a correlate of ungodliness, which inevitably brings down punishment.^ The predicate to the sen- tence " and they that seek evil to my lord" must be supplied from the preceding words, viz. " may they become just such fools." — Ver. 27. It is only in the third line that she finally mentions the present, but in such a manner that she does not offer it directly to David, but describes it as a gift for the men in his train. "And now this blessing ('"'9'3? ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^' ^^^- ^6, as in Gen. xxxiii. 11 : cf. 77 evXayla, 2 Cor. ix. 5, 6), which thine handmaid hath brought, let it be given to the young men in my lord's train" (lit. " at the feet of:" cf. Ex. xi. 8; Judg. iv. 10, etc.). — Ver. 28. The shrewd and pious woman supports her prayer for ^ " She founds her argument upon their meeting, which was so mar- vellously seasonable, that it might be easily and truly gathered from this fact that it had taken place through the providence of God ; i.e. And now, because I meet thee so seasonably, do thou piously acknowledge with me the providence of God, which has so arranged all this, that innocent blood might not by chance be shed by thee." — Seb. Schmidt. 2 Seb. Schmidt has justly observed, that " she reminds David of the promise of God. Not that she prophesies, but that she has gathered it from the general promises of the word of God. The promise referred to is, that whoever does good to his enemies, and takes no vengeance upon them, God himself will avenge him upon his enemies ; according to the saying. Vengeance is mine, I will repay. And this is what Abigail says : And now thine enemies shall be as Nabal." 244 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. forgiveness of the wrong, which she takes upon herself, by promises of the rich blessing with which the Lord would recom- pense David. She thereby gives such clear and distinct ex- pression to her firm belief in the divine election of David as king of Israel, that her words almost amount to prophecy : " For' Jeliovali will make my lofd a lasting house (cf. ch. ii. 35 ; and for the fact itself, 2 Sam. vii. 8 sqq., where the Lord con- firms this pious wish by His own promises to David himself) ; for my lord fighteth the ivars of Jehovah (yid. ch. xviii. 17), and evil is not discovered in thee thy whole life long^ nyn^ evil, i.e. misfortune, mischief ; for the thought that he might also be preserved from wrong-doing is not expressed till ver. 3L ^'All thy days" lit. " from thy days," i.e. from the beginning of thy life. — Ver. 29. " Aiid should any one rise up to pursue thee, . . . the sold of my lord will be hound up in tJie bundle of the living with the Lord thy Gody The metaphor is taken from the custom of binding up valuable things in a bundle, to prevent their being injured. The words do not refer primarily to eternal life with God in heaven, but only to the safe preservation of the righteous on this earth in the grace and fellowship of the Lord. But whoever is so hidden in the gracious fellowship of the Lord in this life, that no enemy can harm him or injure his life, the Lord will not allow to perish, even though temporal death should come, but will then receive him into eternal life. " But the soul of thine enemies, He will hurl away in the cup of the sling.'" " The cup (caph : cf. Gen. xxxii. 26) of the sling" was the cavity in which the stone was placed for the purpose of hurhng. — Vers. 30, 3L Abigail concluded her intercession with the assurance that the forgiveness of Nabal's act would be no occasion of anguish of heart to David when he should have become prince over Israel, on account of his having shed inno- cent blood and helped himself, and also with the hope that he would remember her. From the words, " When Jehovah shall do to my lord according to all the good that He hath spoken con- cerning him, and shall make thee prince over Israel," it appears to follow that Abigail had received certain information of the anointing of David, and his designation to be the future king, probably through Samuel, or one of the pupils of the prophets. There is nothing to preclude this assumption, even if it cannot be historically sustained. Abigail manifests such an advance CHAP. XXV. 32-38. 245 and maturity in the life of faith, as could only have been derived from intercourse with prophets. It is expressly stated with regard to Elijah and Elisha, that at certain times the pious assembled together around the prophets. What prevents us from assuming the same with regard to Samuel? The absence of any distinct testimony to that effect is amply compensated for by tlie brief, and for the most part casual, notices that are given of the influence which Samuel exerted upon all Israel. — Ver. 31 introduces the apodosis to ver. 30 : So will this (i.e. the forgiveness of Nabal's folly, for which she had prayed in ver. 28) not be a stumbling-block (pukah : anything in the road which causes a person to stagger) aiid anguish of heart (i.e. conscientious scruple) to thee, and shedding innocent blood, and that my lord helps himself. '131 '^'^'v?\ is perfectly parallel to '1J1 ni^lDpj and cannot be taken as subordinate, as it is in the Vulgate, etc., in the sense of " that thou hast not shed blood innocently," etc. In this rendering not only is the vav cop. overlooked, but " not" is arbitrarily interpolated, to obtain a suitable sense, which the Vulgate rendering, quod effuderis sanguinem innoxiam, does not give. 2''^''v)1 is to be taken con- ditionally : " and if Jehovah shall deal well with my lord, then," etc. Vers. 32-38. These words could not fail to appease David's wrath. In his reply he praised the Lord for having sent Abi- gail to meet him (ver. 32), and then congratulated Abigail upon her understanding and her actions, that she had kept him from bloodshed (ver. 33) ; otherwise he would certainly have carried out the revenge which he had resolved to take upon Nabal (ver. 34). DPW1 is strongly adversative : nevertheless. V'}^)^, inf. constr. Hiph. of VVT^. ""S, oti, introduces the substance of the affirmation, and is repeated before the oath : DX '•3 . . . v6 ''3, (that) if thou hadst not, etc., (that) truly there would not have been left (cf. 2 Sam. ii. 27). The very unusual form "'n^^'^, an imperfect with the termination of the perfect, might indeed possibly be a copyist's error for ''5<3ri (Olsh. Gr. pp. 452, 525), but in all probability it is only an intensified form of the second pers. fem. imperf., like nnxinn (Deut. xxxiii. 16 ; cf. Ewald, § 191, c). — Ver. 35. David then received the gifts brought for him, and bade Abigail return to her house, with the assurance that he had granted her request for pardon. Q''JS K^J, as in Gen. 246 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. xix. 21, etc. — Ver. 36. When Abigail returned home, she found her husband at a great feast, like a king's feast, very merry (y^V, " therewith," refers to i^Jji^O : cf. Prov. xxiii. 30), and drunken above measure, so that she told him nothing of what had occurred until the break of day. — Ver. 37. Then, " when the wine had gone from JVabal," i.e. when he had become sober, she related the matter to him ; whereat he was so terrified, that he was smitten with a stroke. This is the meaning of the words, " his heart died within him, and it became as stone." The cause of it was not his anger at the loss he had sustained, or merely his alarm at the danger to which he had been exposed, and which he did not believe to be over yet, but also his vexa- tion that his wife should have made him humble himself in such a manner ; for he is described as a hard, i.e. an unbending, self-willed man. — Ver> 38. About ten days later the Lord smote him so that he died, i.e. the Lord put an end to his life by 3 second stroke. Vers. 39-44. When David heard of Nabal's death, he praised Jehovah that He had avenged his shame upon Nabal, and held him back from self-revenge. 'IJI 3"i "•ti'Nl, " who hath pleaded the cause of my reproach (the disgi*ace inflicted upon me) against Nabal." '^Against Nabal" does not belong to " my reproach^^ but to ^^ pleaded the cause" The construction of 3^T with IP is a pregnant one, to fight (and deliver) out of the power of a person (yid. Ps. xliii. 1) ; whereas here the fundamental idea is that of taking vengeance upon a person. — Ver. 40. He then sent messengers to Abigail, and conveyed to her his wish to marry her, to which she consented without hesitation. With deep reverence she said to the messengers (ver. 41), " Behold, thy handmaid as servant {i.e. iß ready to become thy servant) to wash the feet of the servants of my lord;" i.e., in the obsequious style of the East, "I am ready to perform the humblest possible services for thee." — Ver. 42. She then rose up hastily, and went after the messengers to David with five damsels in her train, and became his wife. — A^er. 43. The historian appends a few notices here concerning David's wives : " And David had taken Ahinoam from Jezreel ; thus they also both became his lüives." The expression " also" points to David's marriage with Michal, the daughter of Saul (eh. xviii. 28). Jezreel is not the city of that name in the tribe CHAP. XXVI. 247 of Issachar (Josh. xlx. 18), but the one in the mountains of Judah (Josh. xv. 56). — Ver. 44. But Saul had taken his daughter Michal away from David, and given her to Palti of Gallim. Palti is called Paltiel in 2 Sam. iii. 15. According to Isa. X. 30, Gallim was a place between Gibeah of Saul and Jerusalem. Valentiner supposes it to be the hill to the south of Tuleil el Phul (Gibeah of Saul) called Khirhet el Jisr. After the death of Saul, however, David persuaded Ishbosheth to give him Michal back again (see 2 Sam. iii. 14 sqq.). DAVID IS BETRAYED AGAIN BY THE ZTPHITES, AND SPARES SAUL A SECOND TIME. — CHAP. XXVI. The repetition not only of the treachery of the Ziphites, but also of the sparing of Saul by David, furnishes no proof in itself that the account contained in this chapter is only another legend of the occurrences already related in ch. xxiii. 19-xxiv. 23. As the pursuit of David by Saul lasted for several years, in so small a district as the desert of Judah, there is nothing strange in the repetition of the same scenes. And the assertion made by Thenius, that " Saul would have been a moral monster, which he evidently was not, if he had pursued David with quiet deliberation, and through the medium of the same persons, and had sought his life again, after his own life had been so magnanimously spared by him," not only betrays a superficial acquaintance with the human heart, but is also founded upon the mere assertion, for which there is no proof, that Saul was evidently not so ; and it is proved to be worthless by the fact, that after the first occasion on which his life was so magnani- mously spared by David, he did not leave off seeking him up and down in the land, and that David was obliged to seek refuge with the Philistines in consequence, as may be seen from ch. xxvii,, which Thenius himself assigns to the same source as ch. xxiv. The agreement between the two accounts reduces it entirely to outward and unessential things. It con- sists chiefly in the fact that the Ziphites came twice to Saul at Gibeah, and informed him that David was stopping in their neighbourhood, in the hill Hachilah, and also that Saul went out twice in pursuit of David with 3000 men. But the three thousand were the standing body of men that Saul had raised 248 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. from the very beginning of his reign out of the whole number of those who were capable of bearing arms, for the purpose of carrying on his smaller wars (ch. xiii. 2) ; and the hill of Hachilah appears to have been a place in the desert of Judah peculiarly well adapted for the site of an encampment. On the other liand, all the details, as well as the final results of the two occurrences, differ entirely from one another. When David was betrayed the first time, he drew back into the desert of Maon before the advance of Saul ; and being completely sur- rounded by Saul upon one of the mountains there, was only saved from being taken prisoner by the circumstance that Saul was compelled suddenly to relinquish the pursuit of David on account of the report that the Philistines had invaded the land (ch. xxiii. 25-28). But on the second occasion Saul encamped upon the hill of Hachilah, whilst David had drawn back into the adjoin- ing desert, from which he crept secretly into Saul's encampment, and might, if he had chosen, have put his enemy to death (ch. xxvi. 3 sqq-)* There is quite as much difference in the minuter details connected with the sparing of Saul. On the first occasion, Saul entered a cave in the desert of Engedi, whilst David and his men were concealed in the interior of the cave, without having the smallest suspicion that they were any- where near (ch. xxiv. 2-4). The second time David went with Abishai into the encampment of Saul upon the hill of Hachilah, while the king and all his men were sleeping (ch. xxvi. 3, 5). It is true that on both occasions David's men told him that God had given his enemy into his hand ; but the first time they added. Do to him wliat seemeth good in thy sight ; and David cut off the lappet of Saul's coat, whereupon his conscience smote him, and he said, " Far be it from me to lay my hand upon the Lord's anointed" (ch. xxiv. 5-8). In the second instance, on the contrary, when David saw Saul in the distance lying by the carriage rampart and the army sleeping round him, he called to two of his heroes, Ahimelech and Abishai, to go with him into the camp of the sleeping foe, and then went thither with Abishai, who thereupon said to him, " God hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand : let me alone, that I may pierce him with the spear." But David rejected this proposal, and merely took away the spear and water-bowl that were at Saul's head (ch. xxvi. 6-12). And lastly, notwithstanding the fact that the CHAP. XXVI. 1-12. 249 words of David and replies of Saul agree in certain general thoughts, yet they differ entirely in the main. On the first occasion David showed the king that his life had been in his power, and yet he had spared him, to dispel the delusion that he was seeking his life (ch. xxiv. 10-16). On the second occa- sion he asked the king why he was pursuing him, and called to him to desist from his pursuit (ch. xxvi. 18 sqq.). But Saul was so affected the first time that he wept aloud, and openly declared that David would obtain the kingdom; and asked him to promise on oath, that when he did, he would not destroy his family (ch. xxiv. 17-23). The second time, on the contrary, he only declared that he had sinned and acted foolishly, and would do David no more harm, and that David would undertake and prevail ; but he neither shed tears, nor brought himself to speak of David's ascending the throne, so that he was evidently much more hardened than before (ch. xxvi. 21-25). These decided differences prove clearly enough that the incident described in this chapter is not the same as the similar one men- tioned in ch. xxiii. and xxiv., but belongs to a later date, when Saul's enmity and hardness had increased. Vers. 1-12. The second betrayal of David by the Ziphites occurred after David had married Abigail at Carmel, and when he had already returned to the desert of Judah. On vers. 1 and 2 compare the explanations of ch. xxiii. 19 and xxiv. 3. Instead of " before (in the face of) Jeshimon" {i.e. the wilderness), we find the situation defined more precisely in ch. xxiii. 19, as " to the right (i.e. on the south) of the wilderness^ (Jeshimon). — Vers. 3, 4. When David saw (i.e. perceived) in the desert that Saul was coming behind him, he sent out spies, and learned from them that he certainly had come (P^J"''^, for a certainty, as in ch. xxiii. 23). — Vers. 5 sqq. Upon the receipt of this informa- tion, David rose up with two attendants (mentioned in ver. 6) to reconnoitre the camp of Saul. When he saw the place where Saul and his general Abner were lying — Saul was lying by the waggon rampart, and the fighting men were encamped round about him — he said to Ahimelech and Abishai, " Who xoill go down with me into the camp to Saul?" Whereupon Abishai declared himself ready to do so ; and they both went by night, and found Saul sleeping with all the people. Ahimelech the Hittite is never mentioned again ; but Abishai the son of 250 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Zeruiah, David's sister (1 Chron. ii. 16), and a brother of Joab^ was afterwards a celebrated general of David, as was also his brother Joab (2 Sam. xvi. 9, xviii. 2, xxi. 17). Saul's spear was pressed (stuck) into the ground at his head, as a sign that the king was sleeping there, for the spear served Saul as a sceptre (cf. ch. xviii. 10). — Ver. 8. When Abishai exclaimed, " God hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand: now will I pierce him with the spear into the ground with a stroke, and will give no second" (sc. stroke : the Vulgate rendering gives the sense exactly : et secundo non opus erit, there will be no neces- sity for a second), David replied, " Destroy him not ; for who hath stretched out his hand against the anointed of the Lord, and remained unhurt?" <^\^^, as in Ex. xxi. 19, Num. v. 31. He then continued (in vers. 10, 11) : " As tridy as Jehovah liveth, unless Jehovah smite him (i.e. carry him off with a stroke ; cf. ch. XXV. 38), or his day cometh that he dies (i.e. or he dies a natural death ; * his day ' denoting the day of death, as in Job xiv. 6, XV. 32), or he goes into battle and is carried off, far he it from me loith Jehovah (J^^p')''?, as in ch. xxiv. 7) to stretch forth my hand against Jehovah' s anointed." The apodosis to ver. 10 commences with rh'hn, " far be it," or « the Lord forbid," in ver. 11. " Take now the spear which is at his head, and the pitcher, and let us go.'* — Ver. 12. They departed with these trophies, without any one waking up and seeing them, because they were all asleep, as a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen upon them. ^^NB' "•nb'Nnp stands for '^ ^nb'SnDö, « from the head of Saul," with O dropped. The expression " a deep sleep of Jehovah," i.e. a deep sleep sent or inflicted by Jehovah, points to the fact that the Lord favoured David's enterprise. Vers. 13-20. '^ And David went over to the other side, and placed himself upon the top of the mountain afar off (the space between them was great), and cried to the people," etc. Saul had probably encamped with his fighting men on the slope of the hill Hachilah, so that a valley separated him from the opposite hill, from which David had no doubt reconnoitred the camp and then gone down to it (ver. 6), and to which he re- turned after the deed was accomplished. The statement that this mountain was far off, so that there was a great space between David and Saul, not only favours the accuracy of the historical tradition, but shows that David reckoned fur less CHAP. XXVI. 13-20. 251 now upon any change in the state of Saul's mind than he had done before, when he followed Saul without hesitation from the cave and called after him (ch. xxiv. 9), and that in fact he rather feared lest Saul should endeavour to get him into his power as soon as he woke from his sleep. — Ver. 14. David called out to Abner, whose duty it was as general to defend the life of his king. And Abner replied, " Who art thou, xcho criest out to thekingV^ i.e. offendest the king by thy shouting, and disturbest his rest. — Vers. 15, 16. David in return taunted Abner with having watched the king carelessly, and made him- self chargeable with his death. " For one of the people came to destroy thy lord the hing." As a proof of this, he then showed him the spear and pitcher that he had taken away with him. HNT is to be repeated in thought before nnsV"nNi : " look where the king's spear is; and (look) at the pitcher at his head" sc. where it is. These reproaches that were cast at Abner were intended to show to Saul, who might at any rate possibly hear, and in fact did hear, that David was the most faithful defender of his life, more faithful than his closest and most zealous ser- vants.— Vers. 17, 18. When Saul heard David's voice (for he could hardly have seen David, as the occurrence took place before daybreak, at the latest when the day began to dawn), and David had made himself known to the king in reply to his inquiry, David said, " Why doth my lord pursue his servant ? for what have I done, and what evil is in my handV^ He then gave him the well-meant advice, to seek reconciliation for his wrath against him, and not to bring upon himself the guilt of allowing David to find his death in a foreign land. The words, ^^ and noio let my lord the king hear the saying of his servant" serve to indicate that what follows is important, and worthy of laying to heart. In his words, David supposes two cases as conceivable causes of Saul's hostility : (1) if Jehovah hath stirred thee up against me ; (2) if men have done so. In the first case, he proposes as the best means of overcoming this instigation, that He (Jehovah) should smell an offering. The Iliphil nn^ only means to smell, not to cause to smell. The subject is Jehovah. Smelling a sacrifice is an anthropomorphic term, used to denote the divine satisfaction (cf. Gen. viii. 21). The meaning of the words, "let Jehovah smell sacrifice" is therefore, " let Saul appease the wrath of God by the presentation of acceptable sacrifices." What 252 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. sacrifices they are which please God, is shown in Ps. li. 18, 19 ; and it is certainly not by accident merely that David uses the word minchah, the technical expression in the law for the blood less sacrifice, which sets forth the sanctification of life in good works. The thought to which David gives utterance here, namely,, that God instigates a man to evil actions, is met with in other passages of the Old Testament. It not only lies at the foundation of the words of David in Ps. li. 6 (cf. Hengstenberg on Psalms), but is also clearly expressed in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, where Jehovah instigates David to number the people, and where this instigation is described as a manifestation of the anger of God against Israel ; and in 2 Sam. xvi. 10 sqq., where David says, with regard to Shimei, that God had bade him curse him. These passages also show that God only instigates those who have sinned against Him to evil deeds ; and therefore that the insti- gation consists in the fact that God impels sinners to manifest the wickedness of their hearts in deeds, or furnishes the oppor- tunity and occasion for the unfolding and practical manifestation of the evil desires of the heart, that the sinner may either be brought to the knowledge of his more evil ways and also to repentance, through the evil deed and its consequences, or, if the heart should be hardened still more by the evil deed, that it may become ripe for the judgment of death. The instiga- tion of a sinner to evil is simply one peculiar way in which God, as a general rule, punishes sins through sinners ; for God only instigates to evil actions such as have drawn down the wrath of God upon themselves in consequence of their sin. When David supposes the fact that Jehovah has instigated Saul against him, he acknowledges, implicitly at least, that he himself is a sinner, whom the Lord may be intending to punish, though without lessening Saul's wrong by this indirect confession. The second supposition is : " if, however, children of meri'^ {sc. have instigated thee against me) ; in which case " let them he cursed before the Lord ; for they drive me now (this day) that I dare not attach myself to the inheritance of Jehovah (i.e. the people of God), saying, Go, serve other gods." The meaning is this : They have carried it so far now, that I am obliged to sepa- rate from the people of God, to fly from the land of the Lord, and, because far away from His sanctuary, to serve other gods T1k3 idea implied in the closing words was, that Jehovah could CHAP. XXVI. 21-25. 253 only be worshipped in Canaan, at the sanctuary consecrated to Him, because it was only there that He manifested himself to His people, and revealed His face or gracious presence (vid. Ps. xlii. 2, 3, Ixxxiv. 11, cxliii. 6 sqq.). " We are not to under- stand that the enemies of David were actually accustomed to use these very words, but David was thinking of deeds rather than words" (Calvin). — Ver. 20. '^ And noio let not my Hood fall to the earth far away from the face of the Lord^^ i.e. do not carry it so far as to compel me to perish in a foreign land. " For the king of Israel has gone out to seek a single flea (yid. ch. xxiv. 15), as one hunts a partridge upon the mountains.^* This last comparison does not of course refer to the first, so that " the object of comparison is compared again with something else," as Thenius supposes, but it refers rather to the whole of the previous clause. The king of Israel is pursuing something very trivial, and altogether unworthy of his pursuit, just as if one were hunting a partridge upon the mountains. " No one would think it worth his while to hunt a single partridge that had flown to the mountains, when they may be found in coveys in the fields" (Winer, Bibl. B. W. ii. p. 307). This comparison, therefore, does not presuppose that N^p must be a bird living upon the mountains, as Thenius maintains, so as to justify his altering the text according to the Septuagint. These words of David were perfectly well adapted to sharpen Saul's conscience, and induce him to desist from his enmity, if he still had an ear for the voice of truth. Vers. 21-25. Moreover, Saul could not help confessing, "/ have sinned : return, my son David; I will do thee harm no more, because my life was precious in thine eyes that dayJ^ A good intention, which he never carried out. " He declared that he would never do any more what he had already so often promised not to do again ; and yet he did not fail to do it acrain and acrain. He ouo-ht rather to have taken refuge with God, and appealed to Him for grace, that he might not fall into such sins again ; yea, he should have entreated David himself to pray for him" (Berleb. Bible). He adds still further, " Behold, I have acted foolishly, and have gone sore astray ;" but yet he persists in this folly. " There is no sinner so hardened, but that God gives him now and then some rays of light, which show him all his error. But, alas ! when they 254 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. are awakened by such divine movings, it is only for a fevi moments ; and such impulses are no sooner past, than they fall back again immediately into their former life, and forget all that they have promised." — Vers. 22, 23. David then bade the king send a servant to fetch back the spear and pitcher, and reminded him again of the recompense of God : " Jehovah will recompense His righteousness and His faithfulness to the man into whose hand Jehovah hath given thee to-day; and (for) I would not stretch out my hand against the anointed of the Lord." — Ver. 24. " Behold, as thy soul has been greatly esteemed in my eyes to-day, so will my soul he greatly esteemed in the eyes of Jehovah, that He loill save me out of all tribulation.''^ These words do not contain any " sounding of his own praises" (Thenius), but are merely the testimony of a good conscience before God in the presence of an enemy, who is indeed obliged to confess his wrong-doing, but who no longer feels or acknowledges his need of forgiveness. For even Saul's reply to these words in ver. 25 (^'^ Blessed art thou, my son David: thou wilt undertake, and also prevail ;" ^5^"^ ^^]^ lit. to vanquish, i.e. to carry out what one undertakes) does not express any genuine goodwill towards David, but only an acknowledgment, forced upon him by this fresh experience of David's magnanimity, that God was bless- ing all his undertakings, so that he would prevail. Saul had no more thoughts of any real reconciliation with David. " David went his way, and Saul turned to his place" (cf. Num. xxiv. 25). Thus they parted, and never saw each other again. There is nothing said about Saul returning to his house, as there was when his life was first spared (ch. xxiv. 23). On the contrary, he does not seem to have given up pursuing David ; for, according to ch. xxvii,, David was obliged to take refuge in a foreign land, and carry out what he had described in ver. 19 as his greatest calamity. DAVID AT ZIKLAG IN THE LAND OF THE PHILISTINES. CHAP. XXVII. In his despair of being able permanently to escape the plots of Saul in the land of Israel, David betook himself, with his attendants, to the neighbouring land of the Philistines, to king Achish of Gath, and received from him the town of Ziklag, CHAP. XXVII. 1-7. 255 whicli was assigned him at his own request as a dwelling-place (vers. 1-7). From this point he made attacks upon certain trihes on the southern frontier of Canaan which were hostile to Israel, but described them to Achish as attacks upon Judah and its dependencies, that he might still retain the protection of the Philistian chief (vers. 8-12). David had fled to Achish at Gath once before ; but on that occasion he had been obliged to feign insanity in order to preserve his life, because he was recognised as the conqueror of Goliath. This act of David was not for- gotten by the Philistines even now. But as David had been pursued by Saul for many years, Achish did not hesitate to give a place of refuge in his land to the fugitive who had been outlawed by the king of Israel, the arch-enemy of the Phili- stines, possibly with the hope that if a fresh war with Saul should break out, he should be able to reap some advantage from David's friendship. Vers. 1-7. The result of the last affair with Saul, after his life had again been spared, could not fail to confirm David in his conviction that Saul would not desist from pursuing him, and that if he stayed any longer in the land, he would fall eventually into the hands of his enemy. With this conviction, he formed the following resolution : " Now shall I he consumed one day by the hand of Saul: there is no good to me {i.e. it will not be well with me if I remain in the land), hut ("3 after a negative) I will flee into the land of the Philistines; so ivill Saul desist from me to seek me further (i.e. give up seeking me) m the whole of the territory of Israel, and I shall escape his haiid." — Ver. 2. Accordingly he went over with the 600 men who were with him to Achish, the king of Gath. Achish, the son of Maoch, is in all probability the same person not only as the king Achish mentioned in ch. xxi. 11, but also as Achish the son of Maachah (1 Kings ii. 39), since Maoch and Maachah are certainly only different forms of the same name ; and a fifty years' reign, which we should have in that case to ascribe to Achish, is not impossible. — Vers. 3, 4. Achish allotted dwelling- places in his capital, Gath, for David and his wives, and for all his retinue ; and Saul desisted from any further pursuit of David when he was informed of his flight to Gath. The Chethihh ^D\* is apparently only a copyist's error for ^P^. — Vers. 5 sqq. In the capital of the kingdom, however, David 256 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. felt cramped, and therefore entreated Achlsli to assign him one of the land (or provincial) towns to dwell in ; whereupon he ^ave him Ziklag for that purpose. This town was given to the Simeonites in the time of Joshua (Josh. xix. 5),- but was afterwards taken by the Philistines, probably not long before the time of David, and appears to have been left without in- habitants in consequence of this conquest. The exact situation, in the western part of the Negeb, has not been clearly ascer- tained (see at Josh. xv. 31). Achish appears to have given it to David. This is implied in the remark, " Therefore Ziklag came to the kings of Judah (i.e. became their property) unto this dayV — Ver. 7. The statement that David remained a year and four months in the land of the Philistines, is a proof of the historical character of the whole narrative. The Cp^ before the "four months" signifies a year; strictly speaking, a term of days which amounted to a full year (as in Lev. xxv. 29 : see also 1 Sam. i. 3, 20, ii. 19). Vers. 8-12. From Ziklag David made an attack upon the Geshurites, Gerzites, and Amalekites, smote them without leaving a man alive, and returned with much booty. The occasion of this attack is not mentioned, as being a matter of indifference in relation to the chief object of the history ; but it is no doubt to be sought for in plundering incursions made by these tribes into the land of Israel. For David would hardly have entered upon such a war in the situation in which he was placed at that time without some such occasion, seeing that it would be almost sure to bring him into suspicion with Achish, and endanger his safety. ?y?T., " he advanced" the verb being used, as it frequently is, to denote the advance of an army against a people or town (see at Josh. viii. 1). At the same time, the tribes which he attacked may have liad their seat upon the mountain plateau in the northei'u portion of the desert of Paran, so that David was obliged to march up to reach them. IDE'B, to invade for the purpose of devastation and plunder. Geshitri is a tribe mentioned in Josh. xiii. 2 as living in the south of the territory of the Philistines, and is a different tribe from the Geshurites in the north-east of Gilead (Josh. xii. 5, xiii. 11, 13; Deut. iii. 14). These are the only passages in ■which they are mentioned. The Gerzites, or Gizriies according to the Kerij are entirely unknown. Bonfrere and Clericua CHAP. XXVII. 8-12. 257 suppose them to be the Gerreni spoken of in 2 Mace. xiii. 24, who inhabited the town of Gerra, between RhinocoUira and Pelusium (Strabo, xvi. 760), or Gerron (Ptol. iv. 5). This con- jecture is- a possible one, but is very uncertain nevertheless, as the Gerzites certainly dwelt somewhere in the desert of Arabia. At any rate Grotius and Ewald cannot be correct in their opinion that they were the inhabitants of Gezer (Josh. x. 33). The Amalekites were the remnant of this old hereditary foe of the Israelites, who had taken to flight on Saul's war of exter- mination, and had now assembled again (see at ch. xv. 8, 9). *' For they inhabit the land, where you go from of old to Shur, even to the land of Egypt.'' The "i'^'t< before D^iyo may be explained from the fact that ^Xi3 is not adverbial here, but is construed according to its form as an infinitive : literally, " where from of old thy coming is to Shur." "iti'K cannot have crept into the text through a copyist's mistake, as such a mistake would not have found its way into all the MSS. The fact that the early translators did not render the word proves nothing against its genuineness, but merely shows that the translators regarded it as superfluous. Moreover, the Alexandrian text is decidedly faulty here, and o?S]} is confounded with D^y, uTrb FeXafj,. Shur is the desert of Jifar, which is situated in front of Egypt (as in ch. xv. 7). These tribes were nomads, and had large flocks, which David took with him as booty when he had smitten the tribes themselves. After his return, David betook himself to Achish, to report to the Philistian king concerning his enterprise, and deceive him as to its true character. — Ver. 10. Achish said, " Ye have not made an invasion to-day, have ye ?" ?^?, like fir), in an interrogative sense ; the n has dropped out: vid. Ewald, § 324, b. David replied, "Against the south of Judah, and the south of the Jerahmeelites, and into the south of the Kenites," sc. we have made an incursion. This reply shows that the Geshurites, Gerzites, and Amalekites dwelt close to the southern boundary of Judah, so that David was able to represent the march against these tribes to Achish as a march against the south of Judah, to make him believe that he had been making an attack upon the southern territory of Judah and its dependencies. The N'egeb of Judah is the land between the mountains of Judah and the desert of Arabia (see at Josh. XV. 21). The Jerahmeelites are the descendants of 258 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Jerahraeel, the first-born of Hezron (1 Chron. ii. 9, 25, 26), and therefore one of the three large famihes of Judah who sprang from Hezron. They probably dwelt on the southern frontier of the tribe of Judah (vid. ch. xxx. 29). The Kenites were •protSgSs of Judah (see at ch. xv. 6, and Judg. i. 16). In ver. 11 the writer introduces the remark, that in his raid David left neither man nor woman of his enemies alive, to take them to Gath, because he thought " they might report against us, and say, Thus hath David done.^^ There ought to be a major point under in nb>j?j as the following clause does not contain the words of the slaughtered enemies, but is a clause appended by the historian himself, to the effect that David continued to act in that manner as long as he dwelt in the land of the Philistines. t23K^Dj the mode of procedure ; lit. the right which he exercised (see ch. viii. 9). — Ver. 12 is connected with ver. 10 ; Achish believed David's words, and said (to himself), " He hath made himself stinking (i.e. hated) among his own people, among Isi^ael, and will he my servant (i.e. subject to me) for ever." DAVID IN THE ARMY OF THE PHILISTINES. ATTACK UrON ISRAEL. SAUL AND THE WITCH OF ENDOR. — CHAP. XXVIII. Vers. 1, 2. The danger into which David had plunged through his flight into the land of the Philistines, and still more through the artifice with which he had deceived king Achish as to his real feelings, was to be very soon made appa- rent to him. For example, when the Philistines went to war again with Israel, Achish summoned him to go with his men in the army of the Philistines to the war against his own people and land, and David could not disregard the summons. But even if he had not brought himself into this danger without some fault of his own, he had at any rate only taken refuge with the Philistines in the greatest extremity; and what further he had done, was only done to save his own life. The faithful covenant God helped him therefore out of this trouble, and very soon afterwards put an end to his persecution by the fact that Saul lost his life in the war. — Ver. 1. "I?i those days," i.e. whilst David was living in the land of the Philistines, it came to pass that the Philistines gathered their armies together for a cam- paign against Israel. And Achish sent word to David that he CHAP. XXVIII. 3-25. 259 was to go with him in his army along with his men; and David answered (ver. 2), " Thereby (on this occasion) thou shalt learn what thy servant will do.'' This reply was ambiguous. The words " what thy servant will do" contained no distinct promise of faithful assistance in the war with the Israelites, as the ex- pression " thy servant " is only the ordinary periphrasis for "/" in conversation with a superior. And there is just as little ground for inferring from ch. xxix. 8 that David was disposed to help the Philistines against Saul and the Israelites ; for, as Calovius has observed, even there he gives no such promise, but " merely asks for information, that he may discover the king's intentions and feelings concerning him : he simply pro- tests that he has done nothing to prevent his placing confidence in him, or to cause him to shut him out of the battle." Judging from his previous acts, it would necessarily have been against his conscience to fight against his own people. Nevertheless, in the situation in which he was placed he did not venture to give a distinct refusal to the summons of the king. He there- fore gave an ambiguous answer, in the hope that God would show him a way out of this conflict between his inmost con- viction and his duty to obey the Philistian king. He had no doubt prayed earnestly for this in his heart. And the faithful God helped His servant : first of all by the fact that Achish accepted his indefinite declaration as a promise of unconditional fidelity, as his answer " so (15^, itaque, i.e. that being the case, if thy conduct answers to thy pi'omise) I will make thee the keeper of my head " (i.e. of my person) implies ; and still more fully by the fact that the princes of the Philistines overturned the decision of their king (ch. xxix. 3 sqq.). Vers. 3-25. Saul loith the witch at Endor. — The invasion of Israel by the Philistines, which bi'ought David into so difficult a situation, drove king Saul to despair, so that in utter help- lessness he had recourse to ungodly means of inquiring into the future, which he himself had formerly prohibited, and to his horror had to hear the sentence of his own death. This account is introduced with the remark in ver. 3 that Samuel was dead and had been buried at Eamah (cf. ch. xxv. 1 ; i"i''i'^ with an explanatory vav, and indeed in his own city), andTthat Saul had expelled " those that had familiar spirits and the wizards out of the land'' (on the terms employed, ohoth and yiddonim^ 260 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. see at Lev. xix. 31). He had done this in accordance \vith tlie law in Lev. xix. 31, xx. 27, and Deut. xviii. 10 sqq^ — Vera. ,4, 5. When the Phihstines advanced and encamped at Sliunerrij f Saul brought all Israel together and encamped at Gilboa, i.e. ^ upon the mountain of that name on the north-eastern edge of the plain of Jezreel, which slopes off from a height of about 1250 feet into the valley of the Jordan, and is not far from Beisan. On the north of the western extremity of this moun- tain was Shunem, the present Sulem or Solam (see at Josh. xix. 18) ; it was hardly two hours distant, so that (the camp of the Philistines might be seen from Gilboa. CWhen Saul saw this, he was thrown into such alarm that his heart greatly trembled. As Saul had been more than once victorious in his conflicts with the Philistines, his great fear at the sight of the Philistian army can hardly be attributed to any other cause than the feeling that God had forsaken him, by winch he was suddenly over- whelmed.^Ver. 6. In his anxiety(he inquired of the Lord ; but the Lord neither answered him by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets, that is to say, not by any of the three media by which He was accustomed to make known His will to Israel. nin""!! pXK' is the term usually employed to signify inquiring the will and counsel of God through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (see at Judg. i. 1) ; and this is the case here, with the simple difference that here the other means of inquiring the counsel of God are also included.) On dreams, see at Num. xii. ■G. According to Num. xxvii. 21, Urim denotes divine reve- lation through the high priest by means of the epliod.\JQ\xi the high priest Abiathar had been with the ephod in David's camp ever since the murder of the priests at Nob/(ch. xxii. 20 sqq., xxiii. 6, XXX. 7). How then could Saul inquire of God through the Urim V This question, which was very copiously discussed by the earlier commentators, and handled in different ways, may be decided very simply on the supposition, that after the death of Ahimelech and the flight of his son( another high priest had been appointed at the tabernacle, and another ephod made for him, with the choshen or breastplate, and the Urim and Thum- mim.y It is no proof to the contrary that there is nothing said about this. We have no continuous history of the worship at the tabernacle, but onlv occasional notices. And from these it is perfectly clear that|^the public worship at the tabernacle was CHAP. XXVIII. 7-14. 261 not suspended on the murder of the priests, but was continued stillA For in the first years of David's reign we find the taber- nacle at Gibeon, and Zadok the son of Ahitub, of the hue -of Eleazar, officiating there as high priest (1 Chron. x\u 39, com- pared with ch. V. 38 and vi. 38) ; from which it follows with certainty, that after the destruction of Nob by Saul the taber- nacle was removed to Gibeon, and the worship of the congre- gation continued there. From this we may also explain in a very simple manner the repeated allusions to two high priests in David's time (2 Sam. viii. 17, xv. 24, 29, 35 ; 1 Chron. xv. 11, xviii. 16). (The reason why the Lord did not answer Saul is to be sought Tor in the wickedness of Saul, which rendered him utterly unworthy to find favour with God.^ Vers. 7-14. (instead of recognising this, however, and searching his own heart, Saul attempted to obtain a revelation of the future in ungodly ways.VHe commanded his servants (ver. 7) to seek for a woman thäx nad a familiar spirit. Baalath- oh : the mistress (or possessor) of a conjuring spirit, i.e. of a «pirit with which the dead were conjured up, for the purpose of making inquiry concerning the future Vsee at Lev. xix. 31) There was a woman of this kind at Enaor, which still exists as a village under the old name upon the northern shoulder of the Duhy or Little Hermon (see at Josh. xvii. 11), and therefore only two German (ten English) miles from the Israelitish camp at Gilboa.V-Ver. 8. f Saul went to this person by night and in disguise, tnat he might not be recognised, accompanied by two men 7) and said to her, " Divine to me through necromancy^ and bring me up ichomsoever I tell thee^ The words " bring me up," etc., are an explanation or more precise definition of " divine unto me," etc. Prophesying by the Ob was probably performed by calling up a departed spirit from Sheol, and ob- taining prophecies, i.e. disclosures concerning one's own fate, through the medium of such a spirit^. On the form ''öiDp (Chethibh), see at Judg. ix. 8. — Ver. 9.( Such a demand placed the woman in difficulty. As Saul had cu-iven the necromantists out of the land, she was afraid that the unknown visitor (for it is evident from ver. 12 that she did not recognise Saul at first) might be laying a snare for her soul with his requestjto put her to death, i.e. might have come to her merely for the purpose of spying her out as a conjurer of the dead, and then inflicting 262 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. /capital punishment upon her according to the law (Lev. xx. 27).) — Vers. 10, 11. But( when Saul swore to her that no punish- ment should fall upon her on that account {T}j?\ ^^, "^ shall assuredly not fall upon th^'^), an oath which showed how utterly hardened Saul wasJ she asked him, " Whom shall I bring tip to thee'?" and Saul repHed, ^^ Bring me up Samuel," sc. from the region of the dead, or Sheol, which was thought to be under the ground. This idea arose from the fact that the dead were buried in the earth, and was connected with the thought of heaven as being above the earth. Just as heaven, regarded as the abode of God and the holy angels and blessed spirits, is above the earth ; so, on the other hand, the region of death and the dead is beneath the ground. And with our modes of thought, which are so bound up with time and space, ' it is impossible to represent to ourselves in any other way the difference and contrast between blessedness with God and the shade-life in death. — Ver. 12. The woman then commenced her conjuring arts. This must be supplied from the context, as ver. 12 merely states what immediately ensued. " When the woman saw Samuel, she cried aloud," sc. at the form which appeared to her so unexpectedly. (These words imply most unquestionably that the woman saw an apparition which she did not anticipate, and therefore that she was not really able to conjure up departed spirits or persons who had died, but that she either merely pretended to do so, or if her witchcraft was not mere trickery and delusion, but had a certain demoniacal background, that the appearance of Samuel differed essentially from everything she had experienced and effected before, and therefore filled her with alarm and horror. The very fact, however, that she recognised Saul as soon as Samuel appeared, precludes us from declaring. her art to have been nothing more than jugglery and deception^ for she said to him, " Why hast thou cheated me, as thou art certainly Saul ?" i.e. why hast thou deceived me as to thy person ? why didst thou not tell me that thou wast king Saul ? (Her recognition of Saul when Samuel appeared may be easily explained, if we assume that the woman had fallen into a state of clairvoyance, in which she recognised persons who, like Saul in his disguise, were unknown to her by face.-4-Ver. 13. The king quieted her fear, and then asked her what she had seen ; whereupon she gave him a fuller descrip- CHAP. XXVIII. 15-22. 263 tion of the apparition :( " / saiv a celestial being come up from the earths Eloliim does not signify gods here, nor yet God ; still less an angel or a ghost, or even a person of superior rank, but a celestial (super-terrestrial), heavenly/or spiritual being.-^ Ver. 14. Upon Saul's further inquiry as to his form, she re- plied, "^n old man is ascending, and he is wrapped iti a mantle" Me'il is the prophet's mantle, such as Samuel. was accustomed to wear when he was alive (see ch. xv. 27). f Sau* recognised from this that the person who had been called up ^yas Samuel, and he fell upon his face to the ground, to give expression to his reverence. Saul does not appear to have seen the appari- tion itself. But it does not follow from this that there was no such apparition at all, and the whole was an invention on the part of the witch. It needs an opened eye, such as all do not possess, to see a departed spirit or celestial being. The eyes of the body are not enough for this.] Vers, 15—22. Then Samuel said, " Whr/ hast thou disturbed me (sc. from my rest in Hades ; cf. Isa. xiv. 9), to bring me up ?" It follows, no doubt, from this that Samuel had been disturbed from his rest by Saul; but^hether this had been effected by. the conjuring arts of the witch, or by a miracle of God himself,J is left undecided. Saul replied, " / am sore oppressed, for the Philistines fight against me, and God has departed from me, and ansxoers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams ; then I had thee called (on the intensified form ^^"JiP^J, vid. Ewald, § 228, c), to make known to me what I am to do." The omission of any reference to the Urim is probably to be interpreted very simply from the brevity of the account, and not from the fact that Saul shrank from speaking about the oracle of the high priest, on account of the massacre of the priests which had taken place by his command, f There is a contradiction, however, in Saul's reply : for if God^had forsaken him, he could not expect any answer from Him y ana if God did not reply to his inquiry through the regulffrly appointed media of His revelation, how could he hope to obtain any divine revelation through the help of a witch ? r When living prophets gave no answer, he thought that a dead one might be called up, as if a dead one were less dependent upon God than the living, or that, even in opposition to the will of God, he might reply through the arts of a conjur- ing woman. Truly, if he perceived that God was hostile to 264 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. him, he ought to have been all the more afraid, lest His enmity should be increased by his breach of His laws. But fear and superstition never reason"j(Clericus). Samuel points out this contradiction (ver. 16) : '' Why dost thou ash me, since Jehovah hath departed, from thee, and is become thine enemy?" The meaning is:/How canst thou expect an answer under these circum"stanc>3s"f rom me, the prophet of Jehovah ? "T^V, from "ly, signifies an'fenemy here (from '^'^V, fervour) ; and this meaning is confirmed h^ Ps. cxxxix. 20 and Dan. iv. 16 (Chald.). There is all the less ground for any critical objection to the reading, as the Chaldee and Vulgate give a periphrastic rendering of " enemy," whilst the Sept., Syr., and Arab, have merely para- phrased according to conjectures, f Samuel then announced his fate (vers. 17—19) : " Jehovah hath performed for himself, as He spake by me (i^, for himself, which the LXX. and Vulg. have arbitrarily altered into "V, (toI, tibi (to thee), is correctly ex- plained by Seb. Schmidt, ' according to His grace, or to fulfil and prove His truth') ; and Jehovah hath rent the Mngdorn out of thy hand, and given it to thy neighbour David." f The perfects i express the purpose of God, which had already^been formed, and was now about to be fulfilled^ Ver. 18. The reason for Saul's rejection is then given, as in ch. xv. 23 : " Because (">?^^?, according as) thou . . . hast not executed the fierceness of His anger upon jLmalek, therefore hath Jehovah done this thing to thee this day.'' r This thing" is the distress of which Saul had com- plained, with its consequences. ]^'l\, that Jehovah may give (= for He will give) Israel also with thee into the hand of the Philistines. " To-morrow wilt thou and thy sons be with me (i.e. in Sheol, with the dead) ; also the camp of Israel will Jehovah give into the hand of the Philistines," i.e. give up to them to plunder. /^The overthrow of the people was to heighten Saul's misery, Vwhen he saw the people plunged with him into ruin through his sin 20. V. Gerlach). f Thus was the last hope taken from Saul. His day of grace was gone, and judgment was now to burst upon him without delay. — Ver. 20. These words so alarmed him, that he fell his whole length upon the ground ; for he haa been kneeling hitherto]'(ver. 14). He '''■fell straightway {lit. he hastened and fell) updn the ground. For he was greatly terrified at the words of Samuel : there was also no strength in him, because lie had eaten no food the whole day and the whole night" sc. from CHAP. XXVIII. 15-22. 265 mental perturbation or inward excitement. ( Terror and bodily- exhaustion caused him to fall powerless to the ground.V— Vers. 21, 22. The woman then came to him and persuaded him to strengthen himself with food for the journey which he had to take. It by no means follows from the expression "came unfO' Sauly" that the woman was in an adjoining room during the presence of the apparition, and whilst Samuel was speaking, but only that she was standing at some distance off, and came up to him to speak to him when he had fallen fainting to the ground. (As she had fulfilled his wish at the risk of her own life, she entreated him now to gratify her wish, and let her set a morsel of bread before him and eat. " That strength may he in thee when thou goest thy way^j(i.e. when thou returnest). This narrative, when read without prejudice, makes at once and throughout the impression conveyed by the Septuagint at 1 Chron. x. 13 : eirrjpooTrjcre ^aov\ iv tcS ijyaarpifiv9(p rov ^Tjrrjaat, koX anreicpivaTO avru) HafxovrjX 6 irpocpijTT]'; ; and still more clearly at Ecclus. xlvi. 20, where it is said of Samuel : " And after his death he prophesied, and showed the king his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people." Nevertheless the fathers, reformers, and earlier Christian theologians, with very few exceptions, assumed that there was not a real appearance of Samuel, but only an imaginary one. According to the explana- tion given by Ephraem Syrus, an apparent image of Samuel was presented to the eye of Saul through demoniacal arts. Luther and Calvin adopted the same view, and the earlier Pro- testant theologians followed them in regarding the apparition as nothing but a diabolical spectre, a phantasm, or diabolical spectre in the form of Samuel, and Samuel's announcement as nothing but a diabolical revelation made by divine permission, in which truth is mixed with falsehood.^ It was not till the ^ Thus Luther says (in his work upon the abuses of the Mass, 1522) : " The raising of Samuel by a soothsayer or witch, iu 1 Sam. xxviii. 11, 12, was certainly merely a spectre of the devil ; not only because the Scriptures ßtate that it was effected by a woman who was full of devils (for who could believe that the souls of believers, who are in the hand of God, Ecclus. iii. 1, and in the bosom of Abraham, Luke xvi. 32, were under the power of the devil, and of simple men ?), but also because it was evidently in opposition to the command of God that Saul and the woman inquired of the dead. The Holy Ghost cannot do anything against this himself, nor can He help 266 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL, seventeenth century that the opinion was expressed, that the apparition of Samuel was merely a delusion produced by the witch, without any real background at all. After Reginald Scotus and Balth. Becker had given expression to this opinion, ^^t was more fully elaborated by Ant. van Dale, in his dissert, de divinatipnihus idololatricis sub V. T. ; and in the so-called age of enlightenment this was the prevailing opinion, so that Thenius still regards it as an established fact, not only that the woman was an impostor, but that the historian himself regarded the whole thing as an imposture. There is no necessity to refute this opinion at the present day. Even Fr. Boettcher {de inferis^ pp. Ill sqq.), who looks upon the thing as an imposture, admits tliat the first recorder of the occurrence " believed that Samuel appeared and prophesied, contrary to the expectation of the witch;" and that the author of the books of Samuel was con- vinced that the prophet was raised up and prophesied, so that after his death he was proved to be the true prophet of Jehovah, although through the intervention of ungodly arts (cf. Ezek. xiv. 7, 9). But the view held by the early church does not do justice to the scriptural narrative ; and hence the more modern orthodox commentators are unanimous in the opinion that the departed prophet did really appear and announce the destruc- tion of Sau], not, however, in consequence of the magical arts of the witch,\but through a miracle wrought by the omnipotence of Go(D This is most decidedly favoured by the fact, that the prophetic historian speaks throughout of the appearance, not of those who act in opposition to it." Calvin also regards the apparition as only a spectre (Horn. 100 in 1 Sam.) : " It is certain," he says, " that it was not really Samuel, for God would never have allowed His prophets to be subjected to such diabolical conjuring. For here is a sorceress calling up the dead from the grave. Does any one imagine that God wished His prophet to be exposed to such ignominy ; as if the devil had power over the bodies and souls of the saints which are in His keeping ? The souls of the saints are said to rest and live in God, waiting for their happy resurrection. Be- sides, are we to believe that Samuel took his cloak with him into the grave? For all these reasons, it appears evident that the apparition was nothing more than a spectre, and that the senses of the woman herself were so deceived, that she thought she saw Samuel, whereas it really was not he." The earlier orthodox theologians also disputed the reality of the appearance of the departed Samuel on just the same grounds ; e.g. Seb. Schmidt {Comm.) ; Aug. Pfeiffer ; Sal. Deyling ; and Buddeus, Hist. Eccl. V. T. ii p. 243, and many more CHAP. XXVIII. 15-22. 267 a ghost, but of Samuel himself. He does this not only in ver. 12, " When the woman saw Samel she cried aloud," but also in vers. 14, 15, 16, and 20. It is also sustained by the circum- stance, that not only do the words of Samuel to Saul, in vers. 16-19, create the impression that it is Samuel himself who is speaking ; but his announcement contains so distinct a prophecy of the death of Saul and his sons, that it is impossible to imagine that it can have proceeded from the mouth of an impostor, or have been an inspiration of Satan. On the other hand, the remark of Calvin, to the effect that " God sometimes gives to devils the power of revealing secrets to us, which they have learned from the Lord," could only be regarded as a valid objection, provided that the narrative gave us some intimation that the apparition and the speaking were nothing but a diabolical delusion. But it does nothing of the kind. It is true, the opinion that the witch conjured up the prophet Samuel was very properly disputed by the early theologians, and rejected by Theodoret as " unholy, and even impious ;" and the text of Scripture indicates clearly enough that the very opposite was the case, by the remark that the witch herself was terrified at the appearance of Samuel (ver. 12). Shöbel is therefore quite correct in saying : n It was not at the call of the idolatrous king, nor at the command of the witch, — neither of whom had the power to bring him up, or even to make him hear their voice in his rest in the grave, — that Samuel came ; nor was it merely by divine ' permission,' which is much too little to say. No, rather it was by the special command of God that he left his grave (?), like a faithful servant whom his master arouses at midnight, to let in an inmate of the house who has wilfully stopped out late, and has been knocking at the door. 'Why do you disturb me out of my sleep V would always be the question put to the unwelcome comer, although it was not by his noise, but really by his master's command, that he had been aroused. J Samuel asked the same question." The prohibition of witch- ■^ craft and necromancy (Dent, xviii. 11 ; Isa. viii. 19), which the earlier writers quote against this, does not preclude the possibility of God having, for His own special reasons, caused Samuel to appear. fOn the contrary, the appearance itself was of such a character^ that it could not fail to show to the witch and the king, that God does not allow His prohibitions to be infringed 268 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. with impunity. The very same thing occurred here, which God threatened to idolaters through the medium of Ezekiel (ch. xiv. 4, 7, 8) : " If they come to the prophet, I will answer them in my own way." Still less is there any force in the appeal to Liuke xvi. 27 sqq., where Abraham refuses the request of the rich man in Hades, that he would send Lazarus to his father's house to preach repentance to his brethren who were still living, saying, " They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." For this does not affirm that the appearance of a dead man is a thing impossible in itself, but only describes it as useless and ineffec- tual, so far as the conversion of the ungodly is concerned. The reality of the appearance of Samuel from the kingdom of the dead cannot therefore be called in question, especially as it has an analogen in the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration of Christ (Matt. xvii. 3 ; Luke ix. 30, 31) ; except that this difference must not be overlooked, namely, that Moses and Elijah appeared " in glory," i.e. in a glorified form, whereas Samuel appeared in earthly corporeality with the prophet's mantle which he had worn on earth. Just as the transfiguration of Christ was a phenomenal anticipation of His future heavenly glory, into which He was to enter after His resurrection and ascension, so may we think of the appearance of Moses and Elijah " in glory" upon the mount of trans- figuration as an anticipation of their heavenly transfiguration in eternal life with God. It was different with Samuel, whom God brought up from Hades through an act of His omni- potence. This appearance is not to be regarded as the ap- pearance of one who had risen in a glorified body ; but though somewhat spirit-like in its external manifestation, so that it was only to the witch that it was visible, and not to Saul, it was merely an appearance of the soul of Samuel, that had been at rest in Hades, in the clothing of the earthly corporeality and dress of the prophet^which were assumed for the purpose of rendering it visible/ In this respect the appearance of Samuel rather resembled Uie appearances of incorporeal angels in human form and dress, such as the three angels who came to Abraham in the grove at Mamre (Gen. xviii.), and the angel who appeared to Manoah (Judg. xiii.) ; with this exception, CHAP. XXVIII. 23-25. 269 however, that these angels manifested themselves in a human form, which was visible to the ordinary bodily eye, whereas (Samuel appeared in the spirit-like form of the inhabitants of Hades. In all these cases the bodily form and clothing were only a dress assumed for the soul or spirit, and intended to facilitate perception, so that such appearances furnish no proof that the souls of departed men possess an immaterial corpo- reality.*) Vers. 23-25. On Saul's refusing to take food,(^his servants (i.e. his two attendants) also pressed him, so that he yielded, rose up from the ground, and sat down upon the bed {niittah : i.e. a bench by the wall of the room provided with pillows) ; whereupon the woman quickly sacrificed (served up) a stalled calf, baked unleavened cakes, and set the food she had pre- pared before the king and his servants. The woman did all this from natural sympathy for the unhappy king,! and not, as Thenius supposes, to remove all suspicion of d^eption from Saul's mind ; for she had not deceived the king at all. — Ver. 25. /When Saul and his servants had eaten, they started upon their Svay, and went back that night to Giiboa, which was about ten miles distant, where the battle occurred the next day, and Saul and his sons fell. " Saul was too hardened in his sin to express any grief or pain, either on his own account or because of the ^ Delitzsch (Jbibl. Psychol, pp. 427 sqq.) has very properly rejected, not only the opinion that Samuel and Moses were raised up from the dead for the purpose of a transient appearance, and then died again, but also the idea that they appeared in their material bodies, a notion upon which Calvin rests his argument against the reahty of the appearance of Samuel. But when he gives it as his opinion, that the angels who appeared in human form assumed this form by virtue of their own power, inasmuch as they can make themselves visible to whomsoever they please, and infers still further from this, " that the outward form in which Samuel and Moses appeared (which corresponded to their form when on this side the grave) was the immaterial production of their spiritual and psychical nature," he overlooks the fact, that not only Samuel, but the angels also, in the cases referred to, appeared in men's clothing, which cannot possibly be regarded as a production of their spiritual and psychical nature. The earthly dresa is not indispensable to a man's existence. Adam and Eve had no clothing before the Fall, and there will be no material clothing in the kingdom of glory ; for the " fine linen, pure and white," with which the bride adorns herself for the marriage supper of the Lamb, is " the righteousness of saints" (Rev. xix. 8). 270 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. fate of his sons and his people. In stolid desperation he went to meet his fate. This was the terrible end of a man whom the Spirit of God had once taken possession of and turned into another man, and whom he had endowed with gifts to be the leader of the people of God" (O. v. Gerlach). A EEMOVAL OF DAVID FROM THE ARMY OF THE PHILISTINES. — CHAP. XXIX. Vers. 1-5. Whilst Saul derived no comfort from his visit to the witch at Endor, but simply heard from the mouth of Samuel the confirmation of his rejection on the part of God, and an announcement of his approaching fate, David was delivered, through the interposition of God, from the danger of having to fight against his own people. — Ver. 1. The account of this is introduced by a fuller description of the position of the hostile army. " The Philistines gathered all their armies together to- wards Apheh, hut Israel encamped at the fountahi in (at) JezreeV This fountain is the present Ain Jalud (or Ai7i Jalut, i.e. Goliath's fountain, probably so called because it was regarded as the scene of the defeat of Goliath), a very large fountain, which issues from a cleft in the rock at the foot of the mountain on the north-eastern border of Gilboa, forming a beautifully limpid pool of about forty or fifty feet in diameter, and then flowing in a brook through the valley (Rob. Pal. iii. p. 168). Consequently Aphek, which must be carefully distinguished from the towns of the same name in Asher (Josh. xix. 30; Judg. i. 31) and upon the mountains of Judah (Josh. xv. 53) and also at Ebenezer (1 Sam. iv. 1), is to be sought for not very far from Shunem, in the plain of Jezreel ; according to Van de Velde's Mem., by the side of the present el Afideh, though the situation has not been exactly determined. The statement in the Onom., " near Endor of Jezreel v/liere Saul fought," is merely founded upon the Septuagint, in which ])V'^ is erroneously rendered iv ^EvScop. — Vers. 2, 3. When the princes of the PhiHstines {same, as in Josh. xiii. 3) advanced by hundreds and thousands {i.e. arranged in companies of hundreds and thousands), and David and his men came behind with Achish {i.e. forming the rear-guard), the (other) princes pronounced against their allowing David and his men to go with them. CHAP. XXIX. 6-11, 271 This did not occur at the time of their setting out, but on the road, when tliey had ah'eady gone some distance (compare ver. 11 with ch. XXX. 1), probably when the five princes (Josh. xiii. 3) of the Philistines had effected a junction. To the inquiry, " What are these Hebrews doing?" Achish replied, " Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, who has been with me days already, or years already? and I have found notJdng in him since his coming over unto this day." no^SD, anything at all that could render him suspicious, or his fidelity doubtful. ?Q3j to fall away and go over to a person ; generally construed with 7^? (Jer. xxxvii. 13, xxxviii. 19, etc.) or bv (Jer. xxi. 9, xxxvii. 14; 1 Chron. xii. 19, 20), but here absolutely, as the more pre- cise meaning can be gathered from the context. — Ver. 4. But the princes, i.e. the four other princes of the Philistines, not the courtiers of Achish himself, were angry with Achish, and de- manded, " Send the man back, that he may return to his place, which thou hast assigned him ; that he may not go down with us into the war, and may not become an adversary (satan) to us in the tear ; for wherewith could he show himself acceptable to his lord (viz. Saul), if not with the heads of these men ?" i^>^[}., oionne, strictly speaking, introduces a new question to confirm the previous question. " Go down to the battle :" this expression is used as in ch. xxvi. 10, xxx. 24, because battles were generally fought in the plains, into which the Hebrews were obliged to come down from their mountainous land. " Tliese men," i.e. the soldiers of the Philistines, to whom the princes were pointing. — Ver. 5. To justify their suspicion, the princes reminded him of their song with which the women in Israel had celebrated David's victory over Goliath (ch. xviii. 7). Vers. 6-11. After this declaration on the part of the princes, Achish was obliged to send David back. — Vers. 6, 7. With a solemn assertion, — swearing by Jehovah to convince David all the more thoroughly of the sincerity of his declaration, — Achish said to him, " Thou art honourable, and good in my eyes (i.e. quite right in my estimation) are thy going out and coming in (i.e. all thy conduct) with me in the camp, for I have not found anything bad in thee ; hut in the eyes of the princes thou art not good (i.e. the princes do not think thee honourable, do not trust thee). Turn now, and go in peace, that thou mayest do nothing displeasing to the princes of the Philistines." — Ver. 8. Partly for 272 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. the sake of vindicating himself against this suspicion, and partly to put the sincerity of Achish's words to the test, David replied, *' What have I done, and what hast thou found in thy servant, since I was with thee till this day, that I am not to come and fight against the enemies of my lord the hing ?" These last words are also ambiguous, since the king whom David calls his lord might be understood as meaning either Acliish or Saul. Achish, in his goodness of heart, applies them without suspicion to himself; for he assures David still more earnestly (ver. 9), that he is firmly convinced of his uprightness. " / know that thou art good in my eyes as an angel of God^^ i.e. I have the strongest conviction that thou hast behaved as well towards me as an angel could; but the princes have desired thy removal. — Ver. 10. " And noio get up early in the morning with the servants of thy lord {i.e. Saul, whose subjects David's men all were), who have come with thee ; get ye up in the morning when it gets light for you (so that ye can see), and go!' — Ver. 11. In accordance with this admonition, David returned the next morning into the land of the Philistines, i.e. to Ziklag ; no doubt very light of heart, and praising God for having so graciously rescued him out of the disastrous situation into which he had been brought and not altogether without some fault of his own, rejoicing that " he had not committed either sin, i.e. had neither violated the fidelity which he owed to Achish, nor had to fight against the Israelites'* (Seb. Schmidt). DAVID AVENGES UPON THE AMALEKITES THE PLUNDERING AND BURNING OF ZIKLAG. — CHAP. XXX. Vers. 1-10. During David's absence the Amalekites had invaded the south country, smitten Ziklag and burnt it down, and carried off the women and children whom they found there ; whereat not only were David and his men plunged into great grief on their return upon the third day, but David especially was involved in very great trouble, inasmuch as the people wanted to stone him. But he strengthened himself in the Lord his God (vers. 1-6). — Vers. 1-4 form one period, which is expanded by the introduction of several circumstantial clauses. The apodosis to " It came to pass, when," etc. (ver. 1), does not follow till ver. 4, " Then David and the people," etc. But this is CHAP. XXX. I- 10. 273 formally attached to ver. 3, " so David and his men came," with which the protasis commenced in ver. 1 is resumed in an altered form. " It caine to pass, when David and his men came to Ziklag . . . the Amalekites had invaded . . . and had carried ojjf the wives . . . and had gone their way, and David and his men came into the toivn (for ^ when David and his men came,' etc.), and behold it was hurned. . . . Then David and the people with him lifted up their voice." " On the third day ;" after David's dismission by Achish, not after David's departure from Ziklag. David had at any rate gone with Achish beyond Gath, and had not been sent back till the whole of the princes of the Philistines had united their armies (ch. xxix. 2 sqq.), so that he must have been absent from Ziklag more than two days, or two days and a half. This is placed beyond all doubt by vers. 11 sqq., since the Amalekites are there described as having gone oif with their booty three days before David followed them, and therefore they had taken Ziklag and burned it three days before David's return. These foes had therefore taken advantage of the absence of David and his warriors, to avenge themselves for David's invasions and plunderings (ch. xxvii. 8). Of those who were carried off, " the women" alone are expressly mentioned in ver. 2, although the female population and all the children had been removed, as we may see from the expression " small and great" (vers. 3, 6). The LXX. were therefore correct, so far as the sense is concerned, in introducing the words /cat iravra before ^13 ^k^'^?. " They had killed no one, hut (only) carried awayT Jnj, to carry away captive, as in Isa. xx. 4. Among those who had been carried off were David's two wives, Ahi- noam and Abigail {yid. ch. xxv. 42, 43, xxvii. 3). — Ver. 6. David was greatly distressed in consequence ; ''^ for the people thought (' said,' sc. in their hearts) to stone him" because they sought the occasion of their calamity in his connection with Achish, with which many of his adherents may very probably have been dissatisfied. " For the soul of the whole people was embittered {i.e. all the people were embittered in their souls) because of their sons and daughters" who had been carried away into slavery. " But David strengthened himself in the Lord his God" i.e. sought consolation and strength in prayer and believ- ing confidence in the Lord (vers. 7 sqq.). This strength he manifested in the resolution to follow the foes and rescue their 274 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. booty from them. To this end he had the ephod brought by the high priest Abiathar (cf . ch. xxiii. 9), and inquired by means of the Urim of the Lord, " Shall I pursue this troop ? Shall I overtake it ?" These questions were answered in the affirmative ; and the promise was added, " and thou wilt rescue" So David pursued the enemy with his six hundred men as far as the brook Besor, where the rest, i.e. two hundred, remained standing (stayed behind). The words ^*ioy D''"irii3ri'ij which are appended in the form of a circumstantial clause, are to be connected, so far as the facts are concerned, with what follows : whilst the others remained behind, David pursued the enemy still farther with four hundred men. By the word D^iriiDn the historian has somewhat anticipated the matter, and therefore regards it as necessary to define the expression still further in ver. \Qb. We are precluded fi'om changing the text, as Thenius suggests, by the circumstance that all the early translators read it in this manner, and have endeavoured to make the expression intelli- gible by paraphrasing it. These two hundred men were too tired to cross the brook and go any farther. (15S, which only occurs here and in ver. 21, signifies, in Syrlac, to be weary or exhausted.) As Ziklag was burnt down, of course they found no provisions there, and were consequently obliged to set out in pursuit of the foe without being able to provide themselves with the necessary supplies. The brook Besor is supposed to be the Wady Sheriah, which enters the sea below Ashkelon (see v. Raumer, Pal. p. 52). Vers. 11—20. On their further march they found an Egyptian lying exhausted upon the field ; and having brought hin» to David, they gave him food and drink, namely " a slice of ßg-cake (cf. ch. xxv. 18), and raisin-cakes to eat; whereupon his spirit of life returned {i.e. he came to himself again), as he had neither eaten bread nor drunk water for three days." — Ver. 13. When David asked him whence he had come {to lühom, i.e. to what people or tribe, dost thou belong ?), the young man said that he was an Egyptian, and servant of an Amalekite, and that he had been left behind by his master when he fell sick three days before (" to-day three," sc. days) : he also said, " We invaded the south of the Crethites, and what belongs to Judah, and the south of Caleb, and burned Ziklag ivith ßre." TlTDH^ identical with ^''073 (Ezek. xxv. 16; Zeph. ii. 5), denotes CHAP. XXX. 11-20. 275 those tribes of the Philistines who dwelt in the south-west of Canaan, and is used by Ezekiel and Zephaniah as synonymous with Philistim. The origin of the name is involved in obscu- rity, as the explanation which prevailed for a time, viz. that it was derived fi'om Creta, is without sufficient foundation (yid. Stark, Gaza, pp. 66 and 99 sqq.). The Negeb " belonging to Judah" is the eastern portion of the Negeb. One part of it belonged to the family of Caleb, and was called Caleb's Negeb (vid. ch. XXV. 3). — Vers. 15, 16. This Egyptian then conducted David, at his request, when he had sworn that he would neither kill him nor deliver him up to his master, down to the hostile troops, who were spread over the whole land, eating, drinking, and making merry, on account of all the great booty which they had brought out of the land of the Philistines and Judah. — Yer. 17. David surprised them in the midst of their security, and smote them from the evening twilight till the evening of the next day, so that no one escaped, with the exception of four hundred young men, who fled upon camels. Nesheph signifies the evening twilight here, not the dawn, — a meaning which is not even sustained by Job vii. 4. The form Q^nno appears to be an adverbial formation, like Döi\ — ^Vers. 18, 19. Through this victory David rescued all that the Amalekites had taken, his two wives, and all the children great and small ; also the booty that they had taken with them, so that nothing was missing. — Ver. 20 is obscure : " And David took all the sheep and the oxen : they drove them before those cattle, and said, Thu is David! s booty." In order to obtain any meaning whatever from this literal rendering of the words, we must understand by the sheep and oxen those which belonged to the Amalekites, and the flocks taken from them as booty ; and by " those cattle" the cattle belonmno; to David and his men, which the Amalekites had driven away, and the Israelites had now recovered from them : so that David had the sheep and oxen which he had taken from the Amalekites as booty driven in front of the rest of the cattle which the Israelites had recovered ; whereupon the drovers exclaimed, " This (the sheep and oxen) is David's booty" It is true that there is nothing said in what goes before about any booty that David had taken from the Amalekites, in addition to what they had taken from the Israelites ; but the fact that David had really taken such booty is perfectly obvious 276 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. from vers. 26-31, where he is said to have sent portions of the booty of the enemies of Jehovah to different places in the land. If this explanation be not accepted, there is no other course open than to follow the Vulgate, alter ^i^sp into 1"'^?;', and render the middle clause thus : " they drove those cattle (viz. the sheep and oxen already mentioned) before him" as Luther has done. But even in that case we could hardly understand anything else by the sheep and oxen than the cattle belonging to the Amalekites, and taken from them as booty. Vers. 21-31. When David came back to the two hundred men whom he had left by the brook Besor (DTB'Vj they made them sit, remain), they went to meet him and his warriors, and were heartily greeted by David. — Ver. 22. Then all kinds of evil and worthless men of those who had gone with David to the battle replied : " Because they have not gone with us (lit. with me, the person speaking), we will not give them any of the booty that we have seized, except to every one his wife and his chil- dren : they may lead them away, and go." — Vers. 23, 24. David opposed this selfish and envious proposal, saying, " Do not so, my brethren, with that (nx, the sign of the accusative, not the preposition ; see Ewald, § 329, a: lit. with regard to that) which Jehovah hath done to us, and lie hath guarded us (since He hath guarded us), and given this troop which came upon us into our hand. And who will hearken to you in this matter ? But ("'S, according to the negation involved in the question) as the portion of him, that went into the battle, so be the portion of him Hiat stayed by the things ; they shall share together." Tiin is a copyist's error for ^l^ili. — Ver. 25. So was it from that day and forward ; and he (David) made it (this regulation as to the booty) " the law and right for Israel unto this day." — Vers. 26-31. When David returned to Ziklag, he sent portions of the booty to the elders of Judah, to his friends, with this message : '' Behold, here ye have a blessing of ilie booty of the enemies of Jehovah'^ (which we took from the enemies of Jehovah) ; and this he did, according to ver. 31, to all the places in which he had wandered with his men, i.e. where he had wandered about durinor his flitrlit from Saul, and in which he had no doubt received assistance. Sending these gifts could not fail to make the elders of these cities well disposed towards him, and so to facilitate his recognition as king after the death of Saul, which CHAP. XXX. 21-31. 277 occurred immediately afterwards. Some of these places may have been plundered by the Amalekites, since they had invaded the Negeb of Judah (ver. 14). The cities referred to were Bethel, — not the Bethel so often mentioned, the present Beitin, in the tribe of Benjamin, but Betlniel (1 Chron. iv. 30) or BetJiuI, in the tribe of Simeon (Josh. xix. 4), which Knobel supposes to be Elusa or el Khalasa (see at Josh. xv. 30). The reading Baidaovp in the Septuagint is a worthless conjecture. Bamah of the south, which was allotted to the tribe of Simeon, has not yet been discovered (see at Josh. xix. 8). Jattir has been preserved in the ruins of Attir, on the southern portion of the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. xv. 48). Aroiir is still to be seen in ruins, viz. in the foundations of walls built of enormous stones in Wady Arara, where there are many cavities for holding water, about three hour's e.S.e. of Bersaba, and twenty miles to the south of Hebron (yid. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 620, and v. de Velde, Mem. p. 288). Siphmoth (or Shiphmoth, according to several MSS.) is altogether unknown. It may probably be referred to again in 1 Chron. xxvii. 27, where Zabdi is called the Shiphmite ; but it is certainly not to be identified with Sepham, on the north-east of the sea of Galilee (Num. xxxiv. 10, 11), as Thenius supposes. Eshtemoa has been preserved in the village of Semua, with ancient ruins, on the south-western portion of the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. XV. 50). Bacal is never mentioned again, and is entirely unknown. The LXX. have five different names instead of this, the last being Carmel, into which Thenius proposes to alter Bacal. But this can hardly be done with propriety, as the LXX. also introduced the Philistian Gath, which certainly does not belong here ; whilst in ver. 30 they have totally dif- ferent names, some of which are decidedly wrong. The cities of the Jerahmeelites and Kenites were situated in the Negeb of Judah (ch. xxvii. 10), but their names cannot be traced. — Ver. 30. Hormah in the Negeb (Josh. xv. 30) is Zephath, the present Zepdta, on the western slope of the Bakhma plateau (see at Josh. xii. 14). Cor-ashan, probably the same place as Ashan in the Shephelah, upon the border of the Negeb, has not yet been discovered (see at Josh. xv. 42). Alhach is only men- tioned here, and quite unknown. According to Thenius, it is probably a mistaken spelling for E-ther in the tribe of Simeon 278 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. (Josh. xlx. 7, XV. 43). Hebron, the present el Khulil, Abra- ham's city (see at Josh. x. 3 ; Gen. xxiii. 17). DEATH AND BURIAL OF SAUL AND HIS SONS. — CHAP. XXXI. Th« end of the unhappy king corresponded to his hfe ever since the day of his rejection as king. When he had lost the battle, and saw his three sons fallen at his side, and the^rcliers of the enemy pressing hard upon him, without either repent- ance or remorse he put an endjo^his life by suicide, to escape the disgrace of being wounded and ab used Jby: the foe (vers. 1-7). But he did not attain hisobject^j^ f or the next day the enemy found his corpse and those of his sons, and proceeded to plunder, mutilate, and abuse them (vers. 8-10). However, the king of Israel was not to be left to perish in utter disgrace. The citizens of Jabesh rpmpm1-»prpfl tlip df^livpraimft wliiph^anl had brought to their city after hiselection as king, and_ showed their gratitude by giving an horiourable Jjurial to Saul and his sons (vers. 11-13). There is a parallel to this chapter in 1 Chron. X., which agrees exactly with the account before us, with very few deviations indeed, and those mostly verbal, and merely introduces a hortatory clause at the end (vers. 13, 14). Vers. 1-7. The account of the war between the Philistines and Israel, the commencement of which has already been mentioned in ch. xxviii. 1, 4 sqq., and xxix. 1, is resumed in ver. 1 in a circumstantial clause; and to this there is attached a description of the progress and result of the battle, more especially with reference to Saul. Consequently, in 1 Chron. X. 1, where there had been no previous allusion to the war, the participle Q"''?np3 is changed into the perfect. The following is the way in which we should express the circumstantial clause : " Now when the Philistines were fighting against Israel, the men of Israel fled before the Philistines, and slain men fell in the mountains of Gilboa" (vid. ch. xxviii. 4). The principal engagement took place in the plain of Jezreel. But when the Israelites were obliged to yieldj^they fled up the mountains of Gilboa, and were pursued and slain there.— Vers. 2-4. The Philistines ToITowed Saul, smote (i.e. put to death) his three sons (see at ch. xiv. 49), and fought fiercely against Saul him- self. When the archers (DK'iJa D^^J^ is an explanatory apposition CHAP. XXXI. 1-7. 279 to D^l^ßn) hit him, i.e. overtook him, he was greatly alarmed at them (?nj, from ?^n or '"i^),^ and called upon his armour-bearer to pierce him with the sword, " lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and flay with tw«," i.e. cool their courage upon me by maltreating me. But as tlie^ arniour-bearer would not do this, because he was, very much afraid, jince he was supposed to be answerable for the king's life, Saul inflicted death upon himself with his sword ; whereupon the armour- bearer also fell upon his sword and died with his king, so that on that day Saul and his three sons and his arrpour-bearer all died ; also ^^ all his men^' (for which we have 'will his house? in the Chronicles), i.e. not all the warriors who went out witli him to battle, but all the king's servants, or all the members of his house, sc. who had taken part in the battle. Neither Abner nor his son Ishbosheth was included, for the latter was not in the battle ; and although the former was Saul's cousin and commander-in-chief (see ch. xiv. 50, 51), he did not belong to his house or servants. — Ver. 7. When the men of Israel upon the sides that were opposite to the valley (Jezreel) and the Jordan saw that the Israelites (the Israelitish troop) fled, and Saul and Iiis sons were dead, they took to flight out of the cities, whereupon the Philistines took possession of them. 13^ is used here to signify the side opposite to the place of conflict in the valley of Jezreel, which the writer assumed as his stand- ^ The LXX. have adopted the rendering kxI irpuvft,ä,riaetv ü; toi vTToxovöpix, they wounded him in the abdomen, whilst the Vulgate render- ing is vulnerafus est vehementer a sagittariis. In 1 Chron. x. 3 the Sept. rendering is ku\ i^öutaiv x-tto tuv ro^av, and that of the Vulgate et vulnera- verunt jaculis. The translators have therefore derived prT* from ypr\ = TVU, •^ V T - T T T and then given a free rendering to the other words. But this rendering is overthrown by the word IXD, very, vehemently, to say nothing of the fact that the verb ^^n or n^n cannot be proved to be ever used in the sense of wounding. If Saul had been so severely wounded that he could not kill himself, and therefore asked his armour-bearer to slay him, as Thenius supposes, he would not have had the strength to pierce himself with his Bword when the armour-bearer refused. The further conjecture of Thenius, that the Hebrew text should be read thus, in accordance with the LXX., D^litDH ha, ^n'1, " he was wounded in the region of the gall," is opposed by the circumstance that vTroxovlpiu is not the gall or region of the gall, but what is under the x^ulpos, or breast cartilage, viz. the abdomen and bowels. 280 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. point (cf. ch. xlv. 40) ; so that Ppyn "I3y is the country to the west of the valley of Jezreel, and n"!*n "i^y the country to the west of the Jprdan, i.e. between Gilboa and the Jordan. These districts, i.el the whole of the country round, about the valley of Jezreel, tlie Philistines took possession of, so that the whole of the northern part of the land of Israel,) in other wordsTthe whole land with the exception of Per^a and the^ribe-lana of Judah, came into their hands when Saul was slain. ) Vers. 8-10. On the day following the battTe, when the Philistines stripped the slain, they found Saul and his three sons lying upon Gilboa ; and having cut off their heads and plun- dered their weapons, they sent them (the heads and weapons) as trophies into the land of the Philistines, i.e. round about to the different towns and hamlets of their land, to announce the joyful news in their idol-temples (the writer of the Chronicles mentions the idols themselves) and to the people, and then deposited their weapons (the weapons of Saul and his sons) in the Astarte-houses. But the corpses they fastened to the town- wall of Beth-shean, i.e. Beisan, in the valley of the Jordan (see at Josh. xvii. 11). Beth-azahhim and Beth-ashtaroth are com- posite words ; the first part is indeclinable, and the plural form is expressed by the second word : idol-houses and. Astarte-houses^ like heth-aboth (father' s-houses : see at Ex. vi. 14). On the Ästa7'tes, see at Judg. ii. 13. It is not expressly stated indeed in vers. 9, 10, that the Philistines plundered the bodies of Saul's sons as well, and mutilated them by cutting off their heads ; but itJ'Nl and 1y3j his (i.e. Saul's) liead and his tceapons, alone are mentioned. At the same time, it is very evident from ver. 12, where the Jabeshites are said to have taken down from the wall of Beth-shean not Saul's body only, but the bodies of his sons also, that the Philistines had treated the corpses of Saul's sons in just the same manner as that of Saul himself. The writer speaks distinctly of the abuse of Saul's body only, because it was his death that he had chiefly in mind at the time. To the word ^^fp]). we must supply in thought the object it^N") and 1v3 from the preceding clause. ri*1^ and r\^]i (vers. 10 and 12) are the corpses without the heads. The fact that the Philistines nailed them to the town-wall of Beth-shean presupposes the capture of that city, from which it is evident that they had occupied the land as far as the Jordan. The definite word CHAP. XXXI. 11-13, 281 Beth-ashtaroth is changed by the writer of the Chronicles into Beth-elohim, temples of the gods ; or rather he has interpreted it in this manner without altering the sense, as the Astartes are merely mentioned as the principal deities for the idols generally. The writer of the Chronicles has also omitted to mention the nailing of the corpses to the wall of Beth-shean, but he states instead that " they fastened his skull in the temple of Dagon," a fact which is passed over in the account before us. From this we may see how both writers have restricted themselves to the principal points, or those which appeared to them of the greatest importance {vid. Bertheau on 1 Chron. x. 10). Vers. 11-13. When the inhabitants of Jabesli in Gilead heard this, all the brave men of the town set out to Beth- shean, took down the bodies of Saul and his sons from the wall, brought them to Jabesh, and burned them there. " But their hones they buried under the tamarisk at Jabesh, and fasted seven days" to mourn for the king their former deliverer (see ch. xi.). These statements are given in a very condensed form in the Chronicles (vers. 11, 12). Not only is the fact that " they went the whole night " omitted, as being of no essential importance to the general history ; but the removal of the bodies from the town-wall is also passed over, because their being fastened there had not been mentioned, and also the burning of the bodies. The reason for the last omission is not to be sought for in the fact that the author of the Chronicles regarded burning as ignominious, according to Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9, but because he did not see how to recgncile the burning of the bodies with the burial of the bones, (it was not the custoni in Israel to burn the corpse, but to bury it in the ground. The former was restricted to the worst criminals (see at Lev. xx, 14). Conse- quently the Chaldee interpretedfthe word " burnt" as relating to the burning of spices, a custom which we meet with afterwards as a special honour shown to certain of the kings of Judah on the occasion of their burial (2 Chron. xvi. 14, xxi. 19 ; Jer. xxxiv. 5). But this is expressed by nanb' i? ^"W^ '- to make a burning for him," whereas here it is stated distinctly that " they burnt them." ( The reason for the burning of the bodies in the case of Saul ahd his sons is to be sought for in the peculiarity of the circumstances ; viz. partly in the fact that the bodies were mutilated by the removal of the heads, and therefore a regular 282 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. burial of the dead was impossible, and partly in tlieir anxiety lest, if the Philistines followed up their victory and came to Jabesh, they should desecrate the bodies still further. But even this was not a complete burning to ashes, but merely a burning of the skin and flesh ; so that the bones still remained^ and they were buried in the ground under a shady tree. Instead of " under the (well-known) tamarisk" (eshel), we have •^^^0 ^^^ (under the strong tree) in 1 Chron. x. 11. David afterwards had them fetched away and buried in Saul's family grave at Zela, in the land of Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 11 sqq.). The seven days' fast kept by the Jabeshites was a sign of public and general mourning on the part of the inhabitants of that town at the death of the king, who had once rescued them frorji the most abominable slavery. (In this ignominious fate of Saul there was manifested the rignteous judgment of God in consequence of the hardening of his hearth f But the love which the citizens of Jabesh displayed in theirAreatment of the corpses of Saul and liis sons, had reference not to the king as rejected by God, but to the king as anointed with the Spirit of Jehovah, and was a practical condemnation, not of the divine judgment which had fallen upon Saul, but of the cruelty of the enemies of Israel and its anointed. For although Saul had waged war almost incessantly against the Philistines, it is not known that in any one of his victories he had ever been guilty of such cruelties towards the conquered and slaughtered foe as could justify this barbarous revenge on the part of the uncircumcised upon his lifeless corpse. J THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. HIS book contains the history of David's reign, arranged according to its leadincr features : viz. (1) tlie commencement of his reign as king of Judali at Hebron, whereas the other tribes of Israel adhered to the house of Saul (ch. i.-iv.) ; (2) his promotion to be king over all Israel, and the victorious extension of his sway (ch. v.-ix.) ; (3) the decline of his power in consequence of his adultery (ch. x.-xx.) ; (4) the close of his reign (ch. xxi.-xxiv.). Parallels and supplements to this history, in which the reign of David is described chiefly in its connection with the development of the kingdom of God under the Old Testament, are given in ch. xi.-xxviii. of the first book of Chronicles, where we have an elaborate description of the things done by David, both for the elevation and organization of the public worship of God, and also for the consolidation and establishment of the whole kingdom, and the general ad- ministration of government. I. DAVID KING OVER JUDAH ; AND ISHBOSHETH KING OVER ISRAEL. When David received the tidings at Ziklag of the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul, he mourned deeply and sincerely for the fallen king and his noble son Jonathan (ch. i.). He then returned by the permission of God into the land of Judah, namely to Hebron, and was anointed king of Judah by the elders of that tribe ; whereas Abner, the cousin and chief general of Saul, took Ishbosheth, the only remaining son of the fallen monarch, and made him king over the other tribes 284 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. of Israel at Mahanaim (ch. ii. 1-11). This occasioned a civil war. Abner marched to Gibeon against David with the forces of Ishbosheth, but was defeated by Joab, David's commander- in-chief, and pursued to Mahanaim, in which pursuit Abner slew Asahel the brother of Joab, who was eagerly following him (ch. ii. 12—32). Nevertheless, the conflict between the house of David and the house of Saul continued for some time longer, but with the former steadily advancing and the latter declining, until at length Abner quarrelled with Ishbosheth, and persuaded the tribes that had hitherto adhered to him to acknowledge David as king over all Israel. After the negotia- tions with David for effecting this, he was assassinated by Joab on his return from Hebron, — an act at which David not only expressed his abhorrence by a solemn mourning for Abner, but declared it still more openly by cursing Joab's crime (ch. iii.). Shortly afterwards, Ishbosheth was assassinated in his own house by two Benjaminites ; but this murder was also avenged by David, who ordered the murderers to be put to death, and the head of Ishbosheth, that had been delivered up to him, to be buried in Abner's tomb (ch. iv.). Thus the civil war and the threatened split in the kingdom were brought to an end, though without any complicity on the part of David, but rather against his will, viz. through the death of Abner, the author of the split, and of Ishbosheth, whom he had placed upon the throne, both of whom fell by treacherous hands, and received the reward of their rebellion against the ordinance of God. David himself, in his long school of affliction under Saul, had learned to put all his hope in the Lord his God ; and therefore, when Saul was dead, he took no steps to grasp by force the kingdom which God had promised him, or to remove his rival out of the way by crime. David's conduct on hearing of saul's death, his elegy upon saul and jonathan. — chap. i. David received the intelligence of the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul in the war with the Philistines from an Amalekite, who boasted of having slain Saul and handed over to David the crown and armlet of the fallen king, but whom David punished with death for the supposed murder of the CHAP. I. 1-16. 285 anointed of God (vers. 1-16). David mourned for tTie death of Saul and Jonathan, and poured out his grief in an elegiac ode (vers. 17-27). This account is closely connected with the concluding chapters of the first book of Samuel. Vers. 1-16. David receives the news of SauHs death. — Vers. 1-4. After the death of Saul, and David's return to Ziklag from his campaign against the Amalekltes, there came a man to David on the third day, with his clothes torn and earth strewed upon his head (as a sign of deep mourning : see at 1 Sam. iv. 12), who informed him of the flight and overthrow of the Israelitish army, and the death of Saul and Jonathan. — Ver. 1 may be regarded as the protasis to ver. 2, so far as the contents are concerned, although formally it is rounded off, and ^^^\ forms the apodosis to ^7^.1 '• " It' came to pass after the death of Saul, David had returned from the slaughter of the Amalekltes (1 Sam. XXX. 1-26), that David remained at Ziklag two days. And it came to pass on the third day" etc. Both of these notices of the time refer to the day, on which David returned to Ziklag from the pursuit and defeat of the Amalekltes. Whether the battle at Gilboa, in which Saul fell, occurred before or after the return of David, it is impossible to determine. All that follows from the juxtaposition of the two events in ver. 1, is that they were nearly contemporaneous. The man " came from the army from with Saxd" and therefore appears to have kept near to Saul during the battle. — Ver. 4. David's inquiry, " How did the thing happen ?" refers to the statement made by the mes- senger, that he had escaped from the army of Israel. In the answer, "iK't* serves, like "'S in other passages, merely to introduce the words that follow, like our namely (vid. Ewald, § 338, i). " The people fled from the fight ; and not only have many of the people fallen, but Saul and Jonathan his son are also dead^ D31 . . . Dil : not only . . . hut also. — Vers. 5 sqq. To David's further inquiry how he knew this, the young man replied (vers. 6-10), " / happened to come i}^'^\>}. = '"i"'i??) up to the mountains of Gilboa, and saw Saul leaning upon his spear ; then the chariots (the war-chariots for the charioteers) a7id riders were pressing upon him, and he turned round and saw me, . . . and asked me, Who art thou? and I said. An Amalekite ; and he said to me, Corhe hither to me, and slay me, for the cramp (K^^ according to the Kabbins) hath seized me (sc. so that I cannot defend myself, 286 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. and must fall into the hands of the Philistines) ; for my soul (my life) is still whole in me. Then I went to him, and slew him, because I knew that after his fall he would not live ; and took the crown upon his head, and the bracelet upon his arm, and brought them to my lord ^' (David). "After his fall" does not mean " after he had fallen upon his sword or spear" (Clericus), for this is neither implied in i?Q3 nor in iJT'Jn'Pi; {yB'J (" supported, i.e. leaning upon his spear"), nor are we at liberty to transfer it from 1 Sam. xxxi. A into this passage ; but " after his defeat^^ i.e. so that he would not survive this calamity. This statement is at variance with the account of the death of Saul in 1 Sam. xxxi. 3 sqq. ; and even apart from this it has an air of improba- bility, or rather of untruth in it, particularly in the assertion that Saul was leaning upon his spear when the chariots and horsemen of the enemy came upon him, without having either an armour-bearer or any other Israelitish soldier by his side, so that he had to turn to an Amalekite who accidentally came by, and to ask him to inflict the fatal wound. The Amalekite invented this, in the hope of thereby obtaining the better recompense from David. The only part of his statement which is certainly true, is that he found the king lying dead upon the field of battle, and took off the crown and armlet ; since he brought these to David. But it is by no means cer- tain whether he was present when Saul expired, or merely found him after he was dead. — Vers. 11, 12. This information, the substance of which was placed beyond all doubt by the king's jewels that were brougiit, filled David with the deepest sorrow. As a sign of his pain he rent his clothes ; and all the men with him did the same, and mourned with weeping and fasting until the evening '■^for Saul and for Jonathan his son^ for the people of Jehovah, and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword'* (i.e. in battle). " The people of Jehovah" and the ^' house or people of Israel" are distinguished from one another, according to the twofold attitude of Israel, which furnished a double ground for mournino;. Those who had fallen were first of all members of the people of Jehovah, and secondly, fellow-countrymen. " They were therefore asso- ciated with them, both according to the flesh and according to the spirit, and for that reason they mourned the more" (Seb. Schmidt). " The only deep mourning for Saul, with the CHAP. I. 1-ie. 287 exception of that of the Jabeshites (1 Sam. xxxi. 11), pro- ceeded from the man whom he had hated and persecuted for so many years even to the time of his death ; just as David's successor wept over the fall of Jerusalem, even when it was about to destroy Himself" (O. v. Gerlach). — Ver. 13. David then asked the bringer of the news for further information concerning his own descent, and received the reply that he was the son of an Amalekite stranger, i.e. of an Amalekite who had emigrated to Israel. — Ver. 14. David then reproached him for what he had done : " How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thiiiß hand to destroy the Lord!s anointed?" and commanded one of his attendants to slay him (vers. 15 sqq.), passing sentence of death in these words : " Thy Mood come upon thy head (cf. Lev. XX. 9, Josh. ii. 19) ; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed." ^ David regarded the statement of the Amalekite as a sufficient ground for con- demnation, without investigating the truth any further ; though it was most probably untrue, as he could see through his design of securing a great reward as due to him for performing such a deed (yid. ch. iv. 10), and looked upon a man who could attri- bute such an act to himself from mere avarice as perfectly capable of committing it. Moreover, the king's jewels, which he had brought, furnished a practical proof that Saul had really been put to death. This punishment was by no means so severe as to render it necessary to "estimate its morality according to the times," or to defend it merely from the stand- point of political prudence, on the ground that as David was the successor of Saul, and had been pursued by him as his rival with constant suspicion and hatred, he ought not to leave the murder of the king unpunished, if only because the people, or at any rate his own opponents among the people, would accuse him of complicity in the murder of the king, if not of ^ " Thy mouth hath testißed against thee, and out of it thou art judged (Luke xix. 22), whether thou hast done it or not. If thou hast done it, thou receivest the just reward of thy deeds. If thou hast not done it, then throw the blame upon thine own lying testimony, and be content with the wages of a wicked flatterer ; for, according to thine own confession, thou art the murderer of a king, and that is quite enough to betray thine evil heart. David could see plainly enough that the man was no murderer : he would show by his example that flatterers who boast of such sins as these should get no hearing from their superiors." — Berkb. Bible. 288 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. actually instigating the murderer. David would never have allowed such considerations as these to lead him into unjust severity. And his conduct requires no such half vindication. Even on the supposition that Saul had asked the Amaleklte to give him his death-thrust, as he said he had, it was a crime deserving of punishment to fulfil this request, the more espe- cially as nothing is said about any such mortal wounding of Saul as rendered his escape or recovery impossible, so that it could be said that it would have been cruel under such circum- stances to refuse his request to be put to death. If Saul's life was still " full in him," as the Amalekite stated, his j)osition was not so desperate as to render it inevitable that he should fall into the hands of the Philistines. Moreover, the supposi- tion was a very natural one, that he had slain the king for the sake of a reward. But slaying the king, the anointed of the Lord, was in itself a crime that deserved to be punished with death. What David might more than once have done, but had refrained from doing from holy reverence for the sanctified person of the king, this foreigner, a man belonging to the nation of the Amalekites, Israel's greatest foes, had actually done for the sake of gain, or at any rate pretended to have done. Such a crime must be punished with death, and that by David who had been chosen by God and anointed as Saul's successor, and whom the Amalekite himself acknowledged in that capacity, since otherwise he would not have brought him the news together with the royal diadem. Vers. 17-27. David^s elegy upon Saul and Jonathan. — An eloquent testimony to the depth and sincerity of David's grief for the death of Saul is handed down to us in the elegy which he composed upon Saul and his noble son Jonathan, and which he had taught to the children of Israel. It is one of the finest odes of the Old Testament ; full of lofty sentiment, and spring- ing from deep and sanctified emotion, in which, without the slightest allusion to his own relation to the fallen king, David celebrates without envy the bravery and virtues of Saul and his son Jonathan, and bitterly laments their loss. "He said to teacli" i.e. he commanded the children of Judah to practise or learn it. ^lt^'i?, hoio ; i.e. a song to which the title Keshefh or bow was given, not only because the bow is referred to (ver. 22), but because it is a martial ode, and the bow was one of the CHAP. I. 17-27. 289 principal weapons used by the warriors of that age, and one in the use of which the Benjaminites, the tribe-mates of Saul, were particularly skilful : cf. 1 Chron. viii. 40, xii. 2 ; 2 Chron. xiv. 7, xvii. 17. Other explanations are by no means so natural; such, for example, as that it related to the melody to which the ode was sung; whilst some are founded upon false renderings, or arbitrary alterations of the text, e.g. that of Ewald (Gesch. i. p. 41), Thenius, etc. This elegy was inserted in "the book of the righteous'' (see at Josh. x. 13), fi'om which the author of the books of Samuel has taken it. The ode is arranged in three strophes, which gradually dimi- nish in force and sweep (viz. vers. 19-24, 25-26, 27), and in which the vehemence of the sorrow is gradually modified, and finally dies away. Each strophe opens with the exclamation, "Hoio are the mighty fallen!" T\\q first contains all that had to be said in praise of the fallen heroes; the deepest mourning for their death; and praise of their bravery, of their inseparable love, and of the virtues of Saul as king. The second com- memorates the friendship between David and Jonathan. The third simply utters the last sigh, with which the elegy becomes silent. H\iQ first strophe runs thus : Ver. 19. The ornament, 0 Israel, is slain upon thy heights ! Oh how are the mighty fallen ! 20. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph ! 21. Ye mountains of Gilboa, let not dew or rain be upon you, or fields of first-fruit offerings : For there is the shield of the mighty defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil. 22. From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, The bow of Jonathan turned not back. And the sword of Saul returned not empty. 23. Saul and Jonathan, beloved and kind, in life And in death they are not divided. Lighter than eagles were they ; stronger than lions. 24. Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, "Who clothed you in purple with delight ; Who put a golden ornament upon your apparel ! The first clause of ver. 19 contains the theme of the entire ode. ""iSfn does not mean the gazelle here (as the Syriac and Clericus and others render it), the only plausible support of T 290 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. which is the expression "upon thy heights," whereas the parallel D^"|i33 shows that by ''??n we are to understand the two heroes Saul and Jonathan, and that the word is used in the appella- tive sense of ornament. The king and his noble son were the ornament of Israel. They were slain upon the heights of Israel. Luther has given a correct rendering, so far as the sense is concerned {die Edelsten, the noblest), after the inclyti of the Vulgate. The pronoun " thy high places " refers to Israel. The reference is to the heights of the mountains of Gilboa (see ver. 21). This event threw Israel into deep mourning, which com- mences in the second clause. — Ver. 20. The tidings of this mourning were not to be carried out among the enemies of Israel, lest they should rejoice thereat. Such rejoicing would only increase the pain of Israel at the loss it had sustained. Only two of the cities of Philistia are mentioned by name, viz. Gath, which was near, and Askelon, which was farther off by the sea. The rejoicing of the daughters of the Philistines refers to the custom of employing women to celebrate the victories of their nation by singing and dancing (cf.l Sam. xviii. 6). — Ver. 21. Even nature is to join in the mourning. May God with- draw His blessing from the mountains upon which the heroes have fallen, that they may not be moistened by the dew and rain of heaven, but, remaining \n eternal barrenness, be memorials of the horrible occurrence that has taken place upon them. y'apaa """nn is an address to them ; and the preposition 3 with the construct state is poetical : " mountains in Gilboa " (yid. Ewald, § 289, b). In aa^Sj; . . .h^ the verb ^T^ is wanting. The fol- lowing words, niD^in '^'W\j are in apposition to the foregoing : " and let not fields of first-fruit offerings be upon you" i.e. fields producing fruit, from which offerings of first-fruits were pre- sented. This is the simplest and most appropriate explanation of the words, which have been very differently, and in some resj)ects very marvellously rendered. The reason for this cursing of the mountains of Gilboa was, that there the shield of the heroes, particularly of Saul, had been defiled with blood, namely the blood of those whom the shield ought to defend. ?J?3 does not mean to throw away (Dietrich.), but to soil or defile (as in the Chaldee), then to abhor. " Not anointed with oil," i.e. not cleansed and polished with oil, so that the marks of Saul's blood still adhered to it. v3 poetical for iib. The interpolation CHAP. I. 17-27. 291 of the words " as though " (quasi non esset unctus oleo, Vulgate) cannot be sustained. — Ver. 22. Such was the ignominy experi- enced upon Gilboa by those who had always fought so bravely, that their bow and sword did not turn back until it was satis- fied with the blood and fat of the slain. The figure upon which the passage is founded is, that arrows drink the blood of the enemy, and a sword devours their flesh (vid. Deut. xxxii. 42 ; Isa. xxxiv. 5, 6 ; Jer. xlvi. 10). The two principal weapons are divided between Saul and Jonathan, so that the bow is assigned to the latter and the sword to the former. — Ver. 23. In death as in life, the two heroes were not divided, for they were alike in bravery and courage. Notwithstanding their difference of character, and the very opposite attitude which they assumed towards David, the noble Jonathan did not forsake his father, although his fierce hatred towards the friend whom Jonathan loved as his own soul might have undermined his attachment to his father. The two predicates, ^i^i???., loved and amiable, and D"*!?:, affectionate or kind, apply chiefly to Jonathan; but they were also suitable to Saul in the earliest years of his reign, when he manifested the virtues of an able ruler, which secured for him the lasting affection and attachment of the people. In his mourning over the death of the fallen hero, David forgets all the injury that Saul has inflicted upon him, so that he only brings out and celebrates the more amiable aspects of his character. The light motion or swiftness of an eagle (cf . Hab. i. 8), and the strength of a lion (vid. ch. xvii. 10), were the leading characteristics of the great heroes of antiquity. — Lastly, in ver. 24, David commemorates the rich booty which Saul had brought to the nation, for the purpose of celebrating his heroic greatness in this respect as well. ""J^ was the scarlet purple (see at Ex. xxv. 4). *' With delights," or with lovelinesses, i.e. in a lovely manner. The second strophe (vers. 25 and 26) only applies to the friendship of Jonathan : Ver. 25. Oh how are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle ! Jonathan (is) slain upon thy heights ! 26. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan : Thou wast very kind to me : , Stranger than the love of woman was thy love to me I Ver. 25 is almost a verbal repetition of ver. 19. "»V ("ver. 292 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 26) denotes the pinching or pressure of the heart consequent upon pain and mourning. nriKPöp^ third pers. fern., like a verb n"f) with the termination lengthened {vid. Ewald, § 194, 6), to be wonderful or distinguished. ^n?i]^, thy love to me. Com- parison to the love of woman is expressive of the deepest earnestness of devoted love. The third strophe (ver. 27) contains simply a brief after- tone of sorrow, in which the ode dies away : Oh how are the mighty fallen, The instruments of war perished ! ^' The instru7nents of war^^ are not the weapons ; but the ex- pression is a figurative one, referring to the heroes by whom war was carried on (yid. Isa. xiii. 5). Luther has adopted this rendering (die Streitbaren). DAVID KING OVER JUDAH, AND ISHBOSHETH KING OVER ISRAEL. BATTLE AT GIBEON. — CHAP. II. After David had mourned for the fallen king, he went, in accordance with the will of the Lord as sought through the Urim, to Hebron, and was there anointed king by the tribe of Judah. He then sent his thanks to the inhabitants of Jabesh, for the love which they had shown to Saul in burying his bones (vers. 1-7), and reigned seven years and a half at Hebron over Judah alone (vers. 10 and 11). Abner, on the other hand, put forward Ishbosheth the son of Saul, who still remained alive, as king over Israel (vers. 8 and 9) ; so that a war broke out between the adherents of Ishbosheth and those of David, in whicli Abner and his army were beaten, but the brave Asahel, the son-in-law of David, was slain by Abner (vers. 12-32). The promotion of Ishbosheth as king was not only a continuation of the hostility of Saul towards David, but also an open act of rebellion against Jehovah, who had rejected Saul and chosen David prince over Israel, and who had given such distinct proofs of this election in the eyes of the whole nation, that even Saul had been convinced of the appointment of David to be his successor upon the throne. But David attested his unqualified submission to the guidance of God, in contrast with this rebellion against His clearly revealed will, not only by not returning to Judah till he had received per- CHAP. II. 1-7. 293 mission from the Lord, but also by the fact that after the tribe of Judah had acknowledged him as king, he did not go to war with Ishbosheth, but contented himself with resisting the attack made upon him by the supporters of the house of Saul, because he was fully confident that the Lord would secure to him in due time the whole of the kingdom of Israel. Vers. l-4a. David's return to Hebron, and anointing as king over Judah. — Ver. 1 . " After this," i.e. after the facts re- lated in ch. i., David inquired of the Lord, namely through the Urim, whether he should go up to one of the towns of Judah, and if so, to which. He received the reply, "to Hebron,'^ a place peculiarly well adapted for a capital, not only from its situation upon the mountains, and iu the centre of the tribe, but also from the sacred reminiscences connected with it from the olden time. David could have no doubt that, now that Saul was dead, he would have to give up his existing con- nection with the Philistines and return to his own land. But as the Philistines had taken the greater part of the Israelitish territory through their victory at Gilboa, and there was good reason to fear that the adherents of Saul, more especially the army with Abner, Saul's cousin, at its head, would refuse to acknowledge David as king, and consequently a civil war might break out, David would not return to his own land without the express permission of the Lord. Vers. 2-4a. When he went with his wives and all his retinue (yid. 1 Sam. xxvii. 2) to Hebron and the '^cities of Hebron," i.e. the places belonging to the territory of Hebron, the men of Judah came (in the persons of their elders) and anointed him king over the house, i.e. the tribe, of Judah. Just as Saul was made king by the tribes after his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. xi. 15), so David was first of all anointed by Judah here, and afterwards by the rest of the tribes (ch. v. 3). Vers. 46-7. A new section commences with ^12^. The first act of David as king was to send messengers to Jabesh, to thank the inhabitants of this city for burying Saul, and to an- nounce to them his own anointing as king. As this expression of thanks involved a solemn recognition of the departed king, by which David divested himself of even the appearance of a rebellion, the announcement of the anointing he had received contained an indirect summons to the Jabeshites to recognise 294 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. him as their king now. — Ver. 6. " And now^^ sc. that ye have shown this love to Saul your lord, " may Jehovah show you g- :e and truths ^^ Grace and truth" are connected together, as in Ex. xxxiv. 6, as the two sides by which the goodness of Goa is manifested to men, namely in His forgiving grace, and in His trustwortliiness, or the fulfilment of His promises {vid. Ps. xxv. 10). ^^ And 1 also shoio you this good" namely the prayer for the blessing of God (ver. 5), because ye have done this (to Saul). In ver. 7 there is attached to this the demand, that now that Saul their lord was dead, and the Judgeans had anointed him (David) king, they would show themselves valiant, namely valiant in their reverence and fidelity towards David, who had become their king since the death of Saul. ^9^"- '""tP-H^) ^•^* ^6 comforted, spirited (cf. Judg. vii. 11). It needed some resolution and courage to recognise David as king, because Saul's army had fled to Gilead, and there was good ground for apprehending opposition to David on the part of Abner. Ishbosheth, however, does not appear to have been proclaimed king yet ; or at any rate the fact \vas not yet known to David. DJI. does not belong to ""ni«, but to the whole clause, as ""rix is placed first merely for the sake of emphasis. Vers. 8-11. Promotion of Ishbosheth to be king over Israel. — The account of this is attached to the foregoing in the form of an antithesis : " But A bner, the chief captain of Saul (see at 1 Sam. xiv. 50), had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and led him over to Mahanaim." Ishbosheth had probably been in the battle at Gilboa, and fled with Abner across the Jordan after the battle had been lost. Ishbosheth (i.e. man of shame) was the fourth son of Saul (according to 1 Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39) : his proper name was Esh-baal {i.e. fire of Baal, probably equiva- lent to destroyer of Baal). This name was afterwards changed into Ishbosheth, just as the name of the god Baal was also translated into Bosheth (" shame," Hos. ix 10, Jer. iii, 24, etc.), and Jerubbaal changed into Jerubbosheth (see at Judg. viii. 35). Ewald's supposition, that bosheth was originally employed in a good sense as well, like mStu? and inS (Gen. xxxi. 53), cannot be sustained. Mahanaim was on the eastern side of the Jordan, not far from the ford of Jabbok, and was an impor- tant place for the execution of Abner's plans, partly from its historical associations (Gen. xxxii. 2, 3), and partly also from CHAP. II. 8-11. 295 its situation. There he made Ishbosheth king ^'- for Gilead,'* i,«t. the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan (as in Num. : xii. 29, Josh. xxii. 9, etc.). ^^ For theAshurites:^' this reading ii idecidedly faulty, since we can no more suppose it to refer tdifAssyria (Asshur) than to the Arabian tribe of the Assurim (Gen. XXV. 3) ; but the true name cannot be discovered.^ *^ And for Jezreel" i.e. not merely the city of that name, but the plain that was named after it (as in 1 Sam. xxix. 1). ^^ And for Epliraim, and Benjamin, and all (the rest of) Israel^' of course not including Judah, where David had already been acknowledged as king. — Vers. 10, 11. Length of the reigns of Ishbosheth over Israel, and David at Hebron. The age of Islibosheth is given, as is generally the case at the commencement of a reign. He was forty years old when he began to reign, and reigned two years ; whereas David was king at Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half. We are struck with this differ- ence in the length of the two reigns; and it cannot be explained, as Seb. Schmidt, Clericus, and others suppose, on the simple assumption that David reigned two years at Hebron oxer Judah, namely up to the time of the murder of Ishbosheth, and then five years and a half over Israel, namely up to the time of the conquest ^ In the Septuagint we find Qaatpl or Qctaovp, an equally mistaken form. The Chaldee has "over the tribe of Asher," which is also unsuitable, unlest we include the whole of the northern portion of Canaan, including the terri- tory of Zebulun and Naphtali. But there is no proof that the name Asher was ever extended to the territory of the three northern tribes. We should be rather disposed to agree with Bachienne, who supposes it to refer to the city of Asher (Josh. xvii. 7) and its territory, as this city was in the south- east of Jezreel, and Abner may possibly have conquered this district for Ishbosheth with Gilead as a base, before he ventured to dispute the govern- ment of Israel with the Philistines, if only we could discover any reason why the inhabitants (" the Ashurites ") should be mentioned instead of the city Asher^ or if it were at all likely that one city should be introduced in the midst of a number of large districts. The Syriac and Vulgate have Geshuri, and therefore seem to have read or conjectured ''"I5m'!|n ; and Thenius decides in favour of this, understanding the name Geshur to refer to the most northerly portion of the land on both sides of the Jordan, from Mount Herraon to the Lake of Gennesareth (as in Deut. iii. 14, Josh. xii. 5, xiii. 13, 1 Chron. ii. 23). But no such usage of speech can be deduced from any of these passages, as Geshuri is used there to denote the land of the Geshurites, on the north-east of Bashan, which had a king of its own in the time of David (see at ch. iii. 3), and which Abner would certainly never have thought of conquering. 296 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. of Jerusalem: for tins is at variance with the plain statement in the text, that " David was king in Hebron over the house of Judall seven years and a half." The opinion that the two years of Ishbosheth's reign are to be reckoned up to the time of the war with David, because Abner played the principal part during the other five years and a half that David continued to reign at Hebron, is equally untenable. We may see very clearly from ch. iii.-v. not only that Ishbosheth was king to the time of his death, which took place after that of Abner, but also that after both these events David was anointed king over Israel in Hebron by all the tribes, and that he then went directly to attack Jerusalem, and after conquering the citadel of Ziou, chose that city as his own capital. The short duration of Ishbosheth's reign can only be explained, therefore, on the supposition that he was not made king, as David was, immedi- ately after the death of Saul, but after the recovery by Abner of the land which the Philistines had taken on this side the Jordan, which may have occupied five years.^ Vers. 12-32. War between the supporters of Ishbosheth and those of David. — Vers. 12, 13. When Abner had brought all Israel under the dominion of Ishbosheth, he also sought to make Judah subject to him, and went with this intention from Ma- hanaim to Gibeon, the present Jib, in the western portion of the tribe of Benjamin, two good hours to the north of Jeru- salem (see at Josh. ix. 3), taking with him the servants, i.e. the fighting men, of Ishbosheth. There Joab, a son of Zeruiah, David's sister (1 Chron. ii. 16), advanced to meet him with the servants, i.e. the warriors of David ; and the two armies met at ^ From the fact that in vers. 10, 11, Ishbosheth's ascending the throne is mentioned before that of David, and is also accompanied with a statement of his age, whereas the age of David is not given till ch. v. 4, 5, when he became king over all Israel, Ewald draws the erroneous conclusion that the earlier (?) historian regarded Ishbosheth as the true king, and David as a pretender. But the very opposite of this is stated as distinctly as possible in vers. 4 sqq. (compared with ver. 8). The fact that Ishbosheth is men- tioned before David in ver. 10 may be explained simply enough from the custom so constantly observed in the book of Genesis, of mentioning sub- ordinate lines or subordinate persons first, and stating Avhatever seemed worth recording with regard to them, in order that the ground might be perfectly clear for relating the history of the principal characters without any interruption. CHAP II. 12-32. 297 the pool of Gibeon, i.e. probably one of the large reservoirs that are still to be found there (see Kob. Pal. ii. pp. 135—6 ; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerusalem, ii. pp. 515—6), the one encamping upon the one side of the pool and the other upon the other. — Vers. 14 sqq. Abner then proposed to Joab that the contest should be decided by single combat, probably for the purpose of avoiding an actual civil war. " Let the young men arise and wrestle before us." pnb, to joke or play, is used here to denote the war-play of single combat. As Joab accepted this proposal, twelve young warriors for Benjamin and Ishbosheth, and twelve from David's men, went over, i.e. went out of the two camps to the appointed scene of conflict ; " aiid one seized the other s head, and his sword was (immediately) in the side of the other (his antagonist), so that they fell together." The clause ^ni?n *1V3 i3"}n"i is a circumstantial clause : and his sword (every one's sword) was in the side of the other, i.e. thrust into it. Sending the sword into the op- ponent's side is thus described as simultaneous with the seizure of his head. The ancient translators expressed the meaning by sup\Ay\ng,a\evh {iveirrj^av, deßxit: LXX., Vulg.). This was a sign that the young men on both sides fought with great ferocity, and also with great courage. The place itself received the name of Helkath-hazzurim, '■'■field of the sharp edges" in consequence (for this use oi zur, see Ps. Ixxxix. 44). — Ver. 17. As this single combat decided nothing, there followed a general and very sore or fierce battle, in which Abner and his troops were put to flight by the soldiers of David. The only thing connected with this, of which we have any further account, is the slaughter of Asahel by Abner, which is mentioned here (vers. 18-23) on account of the important results which followed. Of the tliree sons of Zeruiah, viz. Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, Asahel was peculiarly light of foot, like one of the gazelles; and he pursued Abner most eagerly, without turning aside to the right or to the left. — Vers. 20, 21. Then Abner turned round, asked him whether he was Asahel, and said to him, " Turn to thy right hand or to thy left, and seize one of the young men and take his armour for thyself" i.e. slay one of the common soldiers, and take his accoutrements as booty, if thou art seeking for that kind of fame. But Asahel would not turn back from Abner. Then he repeated his command that he would depart, and added, " Why should I smite thee to the ground, and hoio could I then lift 298 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. up my face to Joah thy brother ?" from wliicli we may see that Abner did not want to put the young hero to death, out of regard for Joab and their former friendship. — Ver. 23. But when he still refused to depart in spite of this warning, Abner wounded him in the abdomen with the hinder part, i.e. the lower end of the spear, so that the spear came out behind, and Asahel fell dead upon the spot. The lower end of the spear appears to have been pointed, that it might be stuck into the ground {yid. 1 Sam. xxvi. 7) ; and this will explain the fact that the spear passed through the body. The fate of the young hero excited such sympathy, that all who came to the place where he had fallen stood still to mourn his loss (cf. ch. xx. 12). — Ver. 24. But Joab and Abishai pursued Abner till the sun set, and until they had arrived at the hill Ammah, in front of Giah, on the way to the desert of Gibeon. Nothing further is known of the places mentioned here. — Vers. 25, 26. The Benjaniinites then gathered in a crowd behind Abner, and halted upon the top of a hill to beat back their pursuers ; and Abner cried out to Joab, " Shall the sword then devour for ever (shall there be no end to the slaughter) ? dost thou not knoio that bitterness arises at last ? and how long ivilt thou not say to the people, to return from pur- suing their brethren ?" Thus Abner warns Joab of the conse- quences of a desperate struggle, and calls upon him to put an end to all further bloodshed by suspending the pursuit. — Ver. 27. Joab replied, " If thou hadst not spoken {i.e. challenged to single combat, ver. 14), the people woidd have gone away in the morning, every one from his brother" i.e. there would have been no such fratricidal conflict at all. The first ''? introduces the substance of the oath, as in 1 Sam. xxv. 34; the second gives greater force to it {vid. Ewald, § 330, b). Thus Joab threw all the blame of the fight upon Abner, because he had been the instigator of the single combat ; and as that was not decisive, and was so bloody in its character, the two armies had felt obliged to fight it out. But he then commanded the trumpet to be blown for a halt, and the pursuit to be closed — Ver. 29. Abner proceeded with his troops through the Arabah, i.e. the valley of the Jordan, marching the whole night ; and then crossing the river, went through the whole of Bithron back to Mahanaim. Bithron is a district upon the eastern side of the Jordan, which is only men- tioned here. Aquila and the Vulgate identify it with Bethhoron ; CHAP. III. 1. 299 but there is no more foundation for this than for the suggestion of Thenius, that it is the same place as Bethharam, the later Lihias, at the mouth of the Nahr Hesban (see at Num. xxxii. 36). It is very evident that Bithron is not the name of a city, but of a district, from the fact that it is preceded by the word all, which would be perfectly unmeaning in the case of a city. The meaning of the word is a cutting ; and it was no doubt the name given to some ravine in the neighbourhood of the Jabbok, between the Jordan and Mahanaim, which was on the north side of the Jabbok. — Vers. 30, 31. Joab also assembled his men for a retreat. Nineteen of his soldiers were missing besides Asahel, all of whom had fallen in the battle. But they had slain as many as three hundred and sixty of Benjamin and of Abner's men. This striking disproportion in the numbers may be accounted for from the fact that in Joab's army there were none but brave and well-tried men, who had gathered round David a long time before ; whereas in Abner's army there were only the remnants of the Israelites who had been beaten upon Gilboa, and who had been still further weakened and depressed by their attempts to recover the land which was occupied by the Philistines. — Ver. 32. On the way back, David's men took up the body of Asahel, and buried it in his father's grave at Bethlehem. They proceeded thence towards Hebron, marching the whole night, so that they reached Hebron itself at daybreak. " It got light to them (i.e. the day dawned) at Hebron." DAVID ADVANCES AND ISHBOSHETH DECLINES. ABNEli GOES OVER TO DAVID, AND IS MURDERED BY JOAB. — CHAP. III. Ver. 1. "And the ivar became long (was protracted) between the house of Saul and the house of David ; but David became stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul weaker and weaker.^'' ^r'H, when connected with another verb or with an adjective, expresses the idea of the gradual progress of an affair {vid. Ges § 131, 3, Anm. 3). The historian sums up in these words the historical course of the two royal houses, as they stood opposed to one another. " The loar" does not mean continual fighting, but the state of hostility or war in which they con- tinued to. stand towards one another. They concluded no peace, 300 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. SO that David was not recognised by Ishboslieth as king, any more than Ishbosheth by David. Not only is there nothing said about any continuance of actual warfare by Abner or Ishbosheth after the loss of the battle at Gibeon, but such a thing was very improbable in itself, as Ishbosheth was too weak to be able to carry on the war, whilst David waited with firm reliance upon the promise of the Lord, until all Israel should come over to him. Vers. 2-5. Growth of the House of David. — Proof of the advance of the house of David is furnished by the multi- plication of his family at Hebron. The account of the sons who were horn to David at Hebron does not break the thread, as Clericus, Thenius, and others suppose, but is very appro- priately introduced here, as a practical proof of the strengthen- ing of the house of David, in harmony with the custom of beginning the history of the reign of every king with certain notices concerning his family {yid. ch. v. 13 sqq. ; 1 Kings iii. 1, xiv. 21, XV. 2, 9, etc.). We have a similar list of the sons of David in 1 Chron. iii. 1-4. The first two sons were born to him from the two wives whom he had brought with him to Hebron (1 Sam. xxv. 42, 43). The Chethihh rh^^ is probably only a copyist's error for '^'>>)% which is the reading in many Codices. From Ahinoam — tiie first-born, Amnon (called Ami- non in ch. xiii. 20) ; from Abigail — the second, Chileab. The latter is also called Daniel in 1 Chron. iii. 1, and therefore had probably two names. The lamed before Ahinoam and the fol- lowing names serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, like the German von, in consequence of the word son being omitted (yid. Ewald, § 292, a). The other four were by wives whom he had married in Hebron : Absalotn hy Maachah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a small kingdom in the north-east of Baslian (see at Deut. iii. 14) ; Adonijah by Haggith ; Shephatiah by Abital ; and Ithream by Eglah. The origin of the last .three wives is unknown. The clause appended to Eglah's name, viz. " Davids wife" merely serves as a fitting conclusion to the whole list (Bertheau on 1 Chron. iii. 3), and is not added to show that Eglah was David's principal wife, which would necessitate the conclusion drawn by the Rabbins, that Michal was the wife intended. CHAP. III. 6-39. 301 Vers. 6-39. Decline of the House of Saul. — Vers. 6-11. Ahners quarrel with Ishbosheth. — During the war be- tween the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner adhered firmly to the house of Saul, but he appropriated one of Saul's concubines to himself. When Ishbosheth charged him with this, he fell into so violent a rage, that he at once announced to Ishbosheth his intention to hand over the kingdom to David. Abner had certainly perceived the utter incapacity of Ish- bosheth for a very long time, if not from the very outset, and had probably made him king after the death of Saul, merely that he might save himself from the necessity of submitting to David, and might be able to rule in Ishbosheth's name, and possibly succeed in paving his own way to the throne. His appropriation of the concubine of the deceased monarch was at any rate a proof, according to Israelitish notions, and in fact those generally prevalent in the East, that he was aiming at the throne (vid. ch. xvi. 21 ; 1 Kings ii. 21). But it may gi'adually have become obvious to him, that the house of Saul could not possibly retain the government in opposition to David ; and this may have led to his determination to per- suade all the Israelites to acknowledge David, and thereby to secure for himself an influential post under his government. This will explain in a very simple manner Abner's falling away from Ishbosheth and going over to David. — Vers. 6 and 7 constitute one period, expanded by the introduction of circum- stantial clauses, the ''<}]] (it came to pass) of the protasis being continued in the "i^^'l (he said) of ver. lb. " It came to pass, when there xoas war between the house of Saul and the house of David, and Abner showed himself strong for the house of Saul, and Saul had a concubine named Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, that he (Ishbosheth) said to Abner, Why hast thou gone to my father s concubine ?" The subject to " said''^ is omitted in the apodosis ; but it is evident from ver. 8, and the expression " my father" that Ishbosheth is to be supplied. Even in the second circumstantial clause, " and Saul had a concubine,^' the reason why this is mentioned is only to be gathered from Ishbosheth's words. 3 Pilön*? : to prove one's self strong for, or with, a person, i.e. to render him powerful help. ^^ fc "ii3V signifies a waterfall (catarracta) in Ps. xlii. 8, the only other passage in which it occurs, probably from "i^Vj to roar. This meaning may also be preserved here, if we assume that at the foot of the steep precipice of Zion there was a waterfall probably connected with the water of Siloah. It is true we cannot determine anything with certainty concerning it, as, notwithstanding the many recent researches in Jerusalem, the situation of the Jebusite fortress and the character of the mountain of Zion in ancient times are quite unknown to us. This explanation of the word zinnor is simpler than Ewald' s assumption that the word signifies the steep side of a rock, which merely rests upon the fact that the Greek word KaTap- pd/CT'T}'; originally signified a plunge.^ W1 should be pointed as a Hipliil i?2^"!. The Masoretic pointing yiM arises from their mistaken interpretation of the whole sentence. The Chethibh 1KJ5J> might be the third pers. per/., "who hate David's soul;" only in that case the omission of "^^^ would be surprising, and consequently the Keri ''^^^ is to be preferred. " From this," adds the writer, " the proverb arose, ' The blind and lame shall not enter the house;'" in which proverb the epithet "blind and lame," which David applied to the Jebusites who were hated by him, has the general signification of "repulsive persons," with whom one does not wish to have anything to do. In the Chronicles not only is the whole of ver. 7 omitted, with the proverb to which the occurrence gave rise, but also the allusion ^ The earliest translators have only resorted to guesses. The Seventy, with their »Trriadi) iv Trupx^iCpßt, have combined 113^ with nj^, which they render now and then fc»x<^ipct. or pofi^^ serves to introduce the apodosis, and may be explained in this way, that the relative clause appended to " before Jehovah" acquired the power of a protasis on account of its length ; so that, strictly speaking, there is an anakolouthon, as if the protasis read thus : " Before Jehovah, as He hath chosen me over Israel, I have humbled myself before Jehovah" (for "before him"). With the words "who chose me before thy father and all his house," David humbles the pride of the king's daughter. His playing and dancing referred to the Lord, who had ^chosen him, and had rejected Saul on account of his pride. . He would therefore let himself be still further despised before^ the Lord, i.e. would bear still greater contempt from men than that \^-hich he had just received, and be humbled in his own eyes^(vid. Ps. cxxxi. 1) : then would he also with the maidens attain to honour before the Lord. For whoso humbleth himself, him will God exalt (Matt, xxiii. 12). '^V^ is not to be altered into V.VV.'^, as in the Septuagint. This alteration has arisen from a total miscou- CHAP. VII. öo'J eeption of the nature of true humility, which is of no worth in its own eyes. The rendering given by De Wette is at variance with both the grammar and the sense (" with the maidens, . . . with them will I magnify myself ") ; and so also is that of Thenius (" with them will I be honoured, i.e. in- demnify myself for thy foolish contempt!"). — Ver. 23. Michal was humbled by God for her pride, and remained childless to the time of her death. David's resolution to build a temple, the promised perpetuity of his throne. — chap. vii. To the erection of a sanctuary for the ark upon Mount Zion there is appended an account of David's desire to build a temple for the Lord. We find this not only in the text before us, but also in the parallel history in 1 Chron. xvii. When David had acquired rest from his enemies round about, he formed the resolution to build a house for the Lord, and this resolution was sanctioned by the prophet Nathan (vers. 1-3). But the Lord revealed to the prophet, and through him to David, that He had not required the building of a temple from any of the tribes of Israel, and that He would first of all build a house himself for His servant David, and confirm the throne to his seed for ever, and then he should build Him a temple (vers. 4-17). David then gave utterance to his thanksgiving for this glorious promise in a prayer, in which he praised the unmeasurable grace of God, and prayed for the fij^lfilment of this renewed promise of divine grace (vers. 18-29).'" ^ With regard to the historical authenticity of this promise, Tholuck observes, in his Prophets and their Prophecies (pp. 165-6), that " it can be proved, with all the evidence which is ever to be obtained in support of historical testimony, that David actually received a prophetic promise that his family should sit upon the throne for ever, and consequently an inti- mation of a royal descendant whose government should be eternal. Any- thing Uke a merely subjective promise arising from human combinations is precluded here by the fact that Nathan, acting according to the best of his knowledge, gave his consent to David's plan of building a temple ; and that it was not till afterwards, when he had been instructed by a divine vision, that he did the very opposite, and assured him on the contrary that God would build him a house." Thenius also affirms that " there is no reason for assuming, as De Wette has done, that Nathan's prophecies were not composed till after the time of Solomon ;" that " their historical credibility 340 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Vers. 1-3. When David was dwelling in his house, i.e. the palace of cedar (ch. v. 11), and Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies round about, he said to Nathan the pro- phet : " See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, and the ark of God dwelleth within the curtains." ^^^y.'] in the singular is used, in Ex. xxvi. 2 sqq., to denote the inner covering, com- is attested by Ps. Ixxxix. (vers. 4, 5, 20-38, and especially ver. 20), Ps. cxxxii. 11, 12, and Isa. Iv. 3 ; and that, properly interpreted, tbey are also Messianic." The principal evidence of this is to be found in the prophetic utterance of David in ch. xxiii., where, as is generally admitted, he takes a retrospective glance at the promise, and thereby attests the historical credi- bility of Nathan's prophecy (Thenius, p. 245). Nevertheless, Gust. Baur maintains that " a closer comparison of this more elaborate and simple description (ch. vii.) with the brief and altogether unexampled last words of David., more especially with 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, can hardly leave the slightest doubt, that the relation in which the chapter before us stands to these words, is that of a later expansion to an authentic prophetic utterance of the king himself." For example, the distinct allusion to the birth of Solomon, and the building of the temple, which was to be completed by him, is said to have evidently sprung from a later development of the original promise after the time of Solomon, on account of the incongruity apparent in Nathan's prediction between the ideal picture of the Israelitish monarchy and the definite allusion to Solomon's building of the temple. But there is no such " incongruity" in Nathan's prediction ; it is only to be found in the naturalistic assumptions of Baur himself, that the utterances of the prophets contained nothing more than subjective and ideal hopes of the future, and not supernatural predictions. This also applies to Diestel's opinion, that the section vers. 4-16 does not harmonize with the substance of David's glorious prayer in vers. 18—29, nor the latter again with itself, because the advice given him to relinquish the idea of building the temple is not supported by any reasons that answer either to the character of David or to his peculiar circumstances, with which the allusion to his sou would have been in perfect keeping ; but the prophet's dissuasion merely alludes to the fact that Jehovah did not stand in need of a stately house at all, and had never given utterance to any such desire. On account of this "obvious" fact, Diestel regards it as credible that the original dissuasion came from God, because it was founded upon an earlier view, but that the promise of the son of David which followed proceeded from Nathan, who no doubt looked with more favourable eyes upon the building of the temple. This discrepancy is also arbitrarily foisted upon the text. There is not a syllable about any " original dissuasion " in all that Nathan says ; for he simply tells the king that Jehovah had hitherto dwelt in a tent, and had not asked any of the tribes of Israel to build a stately temple, but not that Jehovah did not need a stately house at all. Of the different exegetical treatises upon this passage, see Christ. Aug Crusii Hypomnemata, ii. 190-219, and Hengstenberg's Christol. i. 123 sqq. CHAP. VII. 1-3. 341 posed of a number of lengths of tapestry sewn together, which was spread over the planks of the tabernacle, and made it into a dwelling, whereas the separate pieces of tapestry are called n'^T. in the plural ; and hence, in the later writers, nij;''"!''. alter- nates sometimes with PHN (Isa. liv. 2), and at other times with n'brjk (Song of Sol. i. 5 ; Jer. iv. 20, xlix. 29). Consequently ^V'^yj] refers here to the tent-cloth or tent formed of pieces of tapestry. " Within (i.e. surrounded by) the tent-cloth:" in the Chronicles we find " under curtains." From the words " when the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies round about," it is evident that David did not form the resolution to build the temple in the first years of his reign upon Zion, nor immediately after the completion of his palace, but at a later period (see the remarks on ch. v. 11, note). It is true that the giving of rest from all his enemies round about does not definitely presuppose the termination of all the greater wars of David, since it is not affirmed that this rest was a definitive one ; but the words cannot possibly be restricted to the two victories over the Philistines (ch. v. 17-25), as Hengstenberg supposes, inasmuch as, however important the second may have been, their foes were not even permanently quieted by them, to say nothing of their being entirely subdued. Moreover, in the promise men- tioned in ver. 9, God distinctly says, "I was with thee whither- soever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies before thee." These words also show that at that time David had already fought against all the enemies round about, and humbled them. Now, as all David's principal wars are grouped together for the first time in ch. viii. and x., there can be no doubt that the history is not arranged in a strictly chronological order. And the expression " after this " in ch. viii. 1 is by no means at variance with this, since this formula does not at all express a strictly chronological sequence. From the words of the prophet, " Go, do all that is in thy heart, for the Lord is with thee," it is very evident that David had expressed the intention to build a splendid palatial temple. The word ^?, go (equiva- lent to "quite right"), is omitted in the Chronicles as super- fluous. Nathan sanctioned the king's resolution " from his own feelings, and not by divine revelation " (J. H. INIichaelis) ; but he did not " afterwards perceive that the time for carrying out this intention had not yet come," as Theuius and Bertheau 342 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. maintain ; on the contrary, the Lord God revealed to the prophet that David was not to carry out his intention at all. Vers. 4-17. The revelation and promise of God. — Ver. 4. " That 7iight,^' i.e. the night succeeding the day on which Nathan had talked with the king concerning the building of the temple, the Lord made known His decree to the prophet, with instructions to communicate it to the kino;, '^i^ nntf?n O . T - |-7 " Shouldest thou build me a house for me to dwell in ?" The question involves a negative reply, and consequently in the Chronicles we find " thou shalt not." — Vers. 6, 7. The reason assigned for this answer: "I have not dwelt in a house from the day of the bringing up of Israel out of Egypt even to this day, but I was wandering about in a tent and in a dwelling." " And in a dwelling" (mishcan) is to be taken as explanatory, viz. in a tent which was my dwelling. As a tent is a traveller's dwelling, so, as long as God's dwelling was a tent, He himself appeared as if travelling or going from place to place. "In the whole of the time that I walked among all the children of Israel, . . . have I spoken a word to one of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Where- fore have ye not built me a cedar house ?" A " cedar house" is equivalent to a palace- built of costly materials. The expres- sion ^^1^] ''t33K' ^^X ("one of the tribes of Israel") is a striking one, as the feeding of the nation does not appear to be a duty belonging to the " tribes," and in the Chronicles we have ''tps'ti* (judges) instead of ^tpnK' (tribes). But if 'tDöb' had been the original expression used in the text, it would be impossible to explain the origin and general acceptance of the word ''^^^. For this very reason, therefore, we must regard ''^.^^ as the original word, and understand it as referring to the tribes, which had supplied the nation with judges and leaders before the time of David, since the feeding, i.e. the government of Israel, which was in the hands of the judges, was transferred to the tribes to which the judges belonged. This view is confirmed by Ps. Ixxviii. 67, 68, where the election of David as prince, and of Zion as the site of the sanctuary, is described as the election of the tribe of Judah and the rejection of the tribe of Ephraim. On the other hand, the assumption of Thenius, that '•^^K', " shepherd-staffs," is used poetically for shepherds, cannot be established on the ground of Lev. xxvii. 32 and Micah vii. 14. CHAP. VII. 4-17. 343 Jehovah gave two reasons why David's proposal to build Him a temple should not be carried out : (1) He had hitherto lived in a tent in the midst of His people ; (2) He had not com- manded any former prince or tribe to build a temple. This did not involve any blame, as though there had been something presumptuous in David's proposal, or in the fact that he had thought of undertaking such a work without an express com- mand from God, but simply showed that it was not because of any negligence on the part of the former leaders of the people that they had not thought of erecting a temple, and that even now the time for carrying out such a work as that had not yet come. — Ver. 8. After thus declining his proposal, the Lord made known His gracious purpose to David : " Thus saith Jehovah of hosts" (not only Jehovah^ as in ver. 5, but Jehovah Sebaoth, because He manifests himself in the following revela- tion" as the God of the universe) : " I have taken thee from the pasturage (grass-plat), behind the flock, to be prince over my people Israel ; and was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and exterminated all thine enemies before thee, and so made thee, ''^'''^V) (perfect with vav consec), a great name, ... and created a place for my people Israel, and planted them, so that they dwell in their place, and do not tremble any more (before their oppressors) ; and the sons of wickedness do not oppress them any further, as at the beginning, and from the day when I appointed judges over my people Israel : and I create thee rest from all thine enemies. And Jehovah proclaims to thee, that Jehovah will make thee a house." The words ''^] ""Jsy . . . Di*n |D7 are to be joined to nji::'Ni3, " as in the beginning," i.e. in Egypt, and from the time of the judges ; that is to say, during the rule of the judges, when the surrounding nations constantly oppressed and subjugated Israel. The plan usually adopted, of connecting the words with ''nn''jnij does not yield any suitable thought at all, as God had not given David rest from the very beginning of the times of the judges ; but the period of the judges was long antecedent to the time of David, and was not a period of rest for the Israelites. Again, ''nrT'jni does not resume what is stated in ver. 9, and is not to be rendered as a preterite in the sense of " I have procured thee rest," but as a perfect with vav consec, " and I procure thee rest" from what is now about to come to pass. And T'Sni is to be taken in the S44 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. same way : the Lord shows thee, first of all through His pro- mise (which follows), and then through the fact itself, the realization of His word. ''nn''3ni refers to the future, as well as the building of David's house, and therefore not to the rest from all his enemies, which God had already secured for David, but to that which He would still further secure for him, that is to say, to the maintenance and establishment of that rest. The commentary upon this is to be found in Ps. Ixxxix. 22-24. In the Chronicles (ver. 10) there is a somewhat different turn given to the last clauses : " and I bend down all thine enemies, and make it (the bending-down) known to thee (by the fact), and a house will Jehovah build for thee." The thought is not essentially changed by this ; consequently there is no ground for any emendation of the text, which is not even apparently necessary, unless, like Bertheau, we misinterpret the words, and connect "^liy^pni erroneously with the previous clause. The connection between vers. 5-7 and 8-16 has been cor- rectly indicated by Thenius as follows : Thou shalt not build a house for Me ; but I, who have from the very beginning glorified myself in thee and my people (vers. 8-11), will build a house for thee ; and thy son shall erect a house for me (ver. 13). This thought is not merely "a play upon words entirely in the spirit of prophecy," but contains the deep general truth that God must first of all build a man's house, before the man can build God's house, and applies it espe- cially to the kingdom of God in Israel. As long as the quiet and full possession of the land of Canaan, which had been promised by the Lord to the people of God for their inheritance, was disputed by their enemies round about, even the dwelling- place of their God could not assume any other form than that of a wanderer's tent. The kingdom of God in Israel first acquired its rest and consolation through the efforts of David, when God had made all his foes subject to him and estab- lished his throne firmly, i.e. had assured to his descendants the possession of the kingdom for all future time. And it was this which ushered in the time for the building of a stationary house as a dwelling for the name of the Lord, i.e. for the visible manifestation of the presence of God in the midst of His people. The conquest of the citadel of Zion and the elevation of this fortress into the palace of the king, whom the Lord had CHAP. VII. 4-17. 345 given to His people, formed the commencement of tlie estab- lishment of the kingdom of God. But this commencement received its first pledge of perpetuity from the divine assurance that the throne of David should be established for all future time. And this the Lord was about to accomplish : He would build David a house, and then his seed should build the house of the Lord. No definite reason is assigned why David himself was not to build the temple. We learn this first of all from David's last words (1 Chron. xxviii. 3), in which he says to the assembled heads of the nation, " God said to me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou art a man of wars, and hast shed blood." Compare with this the similar words of David to Solomon in 1 Chron. xxii. 8, and Solomon's statement in his message to Hiram, that David had been pre- vented from building the temple in consequence of his many wars. It was probably not till afterwards that David was informed by Nathan what the true reason was. As Hengsten- berg has correctly observed, the fact that David was not per- mitted to build the temple on account of his own personal unworthiness, did not involve any blame for what he had done ; for David stood in a closer relation to the Lord than Solomon did, and the wars which he waged were wars of the Lord (1 Sam. XXV. 28) for the maintenance and defence of the kingdom of God. But inasmuch as these wars were necessary and inevitable, they were practical proofs that David's kingdom and government were not yet established, and therefore that the time for the building of the temple had not yet come, and the rest of peace was not yet secured. The temple, as the symbolical representation of the kingdom of God, was also to correspond to the nature of that kingdom, and shadow forth the peace of the kingdom of God. For this reason, David, the man of war, was not to build the temple ; but that was to be reserved for Solomon, the man of peace, the type of the Prince of Peace (Isa. ix. 5). "^ In vers. 12-16 there follows a more precise definition of the way in which the Lord would build a house for His servant David : " When thy days shall become full, and thou shalt lie with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, who shall come from thy body, and establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my jiajne^ and I shall establish the throne of hia- 3i6 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. kingdom for ever." O'^ipn, to set up, i.e. to promote to royal dignity. N^"". IK'X is not to be altered into 5<^^^ ^f X, as Thenius and others maintain. The assumption that Solomon had already been born, is an unfounded one (see the note to eh. v. 11, p. 319) ; and it by no means follows from the statement in ver. 1, to the effect that God had given David rest from all his enemies, that his resolution to build a temple was not formed till the closing years of his reign. — Vers. 14 sqq. " / will be a father to himy and he ivill be a son to me; so that if he^-asixw/y I shall chastise him loith rods of men, and with strokes ofilie children of men (i.e. not ' with moderate punishment, such as parents are accustomed to inflict,' as Clericus explains it, but with such punishments as are inflicted upon all men who go astray, and from which even the seed of David is not to be excepted). But my mercy shall not depart from him., as I caused it to depart from Saul, whom I jnit aioay before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever beforejtliee^; thy throne shall be established for ever." It is very obvious, from all the separate details of this promise, that it related primarily to Solomon, and had a certain fulfilment in him and his reign. On the death of David, his son Solomon ascended the throne, and God defended his kingdom against the machinations of Adonijah (1 Kings ii. 12) ; so that Solomon was able to say, " The Lord hath fulfilled His word that He spoke ; for I have risen up in the stead of my father David," etc. (1 Kings viii. 20). Solomon built the temple, as the Lord said to David (1 Kings V. 19, viii. 15 sqq.). But in his old age Solomon sinned against the Lord by falling into idolatry ; and as a punishment for this, after his death his kingdom was rent from his son, not indeed entirely, as one portion was still preserved to the family for David's sake (1 Kings xi. 9 sqq.). Thus the - Lord punished lüm with rods of men, but did not withdraw I from him His grace. At the same time, however unmistakeable ( the allusions to Solomon are, the substance of the promise is not fully exhausted in him. The threefold repetition of the expression " for ever," the establishment of the kingdom and throne of David f of ever, points incontrovertibly beyond the time of Solomon, and to the eternal continuance of the seed of David. The word seed denotes the posterity of a person, which may consist either in one son or in several children, or in a long / CHAP. VII. 4-17. 347 line of successive generations. The idea of a number of persons living at the same time, is here precluded by the context of the promise, as only one of David's successors could sit upon the throne at a time. On the other hand, the idea of a number of ^ • descendants following one another, is evidently contained in the -> promise, that God would not withdraw His favour from the seed, even if it went astray, as He had done from Saul, since this implies that even in that case the throne should be trans- mitted from father to son. There is still more, however, in- volved in the expression " for ever." When the promise was , given that the throne of the kingdom of David should continue _ " to eternity," an eternal duration was also promised to the seed ^. that should occupy this throne, just as in ver. 16 the house and -^ kingdom of David are spoken of as existing for ever, side by side. We must not reduce the idea of eternity to the popular notion of a long incalculable period, but must take it in an absolute iftnse, as the promise is evidently understood in Ps. Ixxxix. 'bo': " I set his seed for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven." No earthly kingdom, and no posterity of any single man, has eternal duration like the heaven and the earth ; but the different families of men become extinct, as the different earthly kingdoms perish, and other families and kingdoms take their place. The posterity of David, therefore, could only last for ever by running out in a person who lives for ever, i.e. by - culminating in the Messiah, who lives for ever, and of whose "~ kingdom there is no end. The promise consequently refers to the posterity of David, commencing with Solomon and closing with Christ: so that by the "seed" we are not to understand Solomon alone, with the kings who succeeded him, nor Christ alone, to the exclusion of Solomon and the earthly kings of the family of David ; nor is the allusion to Solomon and Christ to be regarded as a double allusion to two different objects. But if this is established, — namely, that the promise given to the seed of David that his kingdom should endure for ever only attained its ultimate fulfilment in Christ, — we must not restrict - the_building of the house of God to the erection of Solomon's " temple. " The building of the house of the Lord goes hand in hand with the eternity of the kingdom" (Hengstenberg). As the kingdom endures for ever, so the house built for tlie dwell- ing-place of the Lord must also endure for ever, as Solomou 348 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. said at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings viii. 13) : " I have surely built Thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for Thee to abide in for ever." The everlasting continuance of Solomon's temple must not be reduced, however, to the simple fact, that - even if the temple of Solomon should be destroyed, a new ■ building would be erected in its place by the earthly descend- ^ ants of Solomon, although this is also implied in the words, and the temple of Zerubbabel is included as the restoration of that of Solomon. For it is not merely in its earthly form, as a building of wood and stone, that the temple is referred to, but also and chiefly in its essential characteristic, as the place for the - manifestation and presence of God in the midst of Plis people. _ The earthly form is perishable, the essence eternal. This ^ essence was the dwelling of God in the midst of His people, which did not cease with the destruction of the temple at Jeru- it- salem, but culminated in the appearance of Jesus Christ, in whom Jehovah came to His people, and, as God the Word, made human nature His dwelling-place {laK-iyvwaev iv rjfiiv, John i. 14) in the glory of the only-begotten Son of the Father ; so that Christ could say to the Jews, " Destroy this temple (i.e. the temple of His body), and in three days I will build it up again" (John ii. 19). It is with this building up of the temple destroyed by the Jews, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that the complete and essential fulfilment of our promise begins. It is perpetuated within the Christian church in the indwelling of the Father and Son through the Holy Ghost in the hearts of believers (John xiv, 23; 1 Cor. vi. 19), by which the church of Jesus Christ is built up a spiritual house of God, composed of living stones (1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; compare 2 Cor. vi. 16, Heb. iii. 6) ; and it will be perfected in the completion of the kingdom of God at the end of time in the new Jerusalem, which shall come down upon the new earth out of heaven from God, as the true tabernacle of God with men (Rev. xxi. 1-3). As the building of the house of God receives its fulfilment first of all through Christ, so the promise, " I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son," is first fully realized in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the heavenly Father yid. Heb. i. 5). In the Old Testament the relation between father and son denotes the deepest intimacy of love ; and love CHAP. VII. 18-29. 349 is perfected in unity of nature, in the communication to the son of all that the father hath. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand (John iii. 35). Sonship therefore includes the government of the world. This not only- applied to Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, but also to the seed ö7Dayid^_generally, so^Tär as th'ey truly littaine3.~fo the relation of childrenoT'^God. So long as Solomon walked in the ways of the Lord, he ruled over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) to the border of Egypt (1 Kings v. 1) ; but when his heart turned away from the Lord in his old age, adversaries rose up against him (1 Kings xi. 14 sqq., 23 sqq.), and after his death the greater part of the kingdom was rent from his son. The seed of David was chastised for its sins ; and as its apostasy continued, it was humbled yet more and more, until the earthly throne of David became extinct. Never- theless the Lord did not cause His mercy to depart from him. When the house of David had fallen into decay, Jesus Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, to raise up the throne of His father David again, and to reign for ever as King over the house of Jacob (Luke i. 32, 33), and to establish the house and kingdom of David for ever. — In ver. 16, where the promise returns to David again with the words, " thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever," the expression ^^"?Z. (before thee), which the LXX. and Syriac have arbitrarily changed into "'^2? (before me), should be particularly observed. David, as the tribe-father and lounder^oFthe^ line of kings, is regarded either " as seeing all his descendants pass before him in a vision," as O. v. Gerlach supposes, or as continuing to exist in his descendants. — Ver. 17. " According to all these words . . . did Nathan speak unto David" i.e. he related the whole to David, just as God had addressed it to him in the night. The clause in apposition, " according to all this vision," merely introduces a more minute definition of the peculiar form of the revelation. God spoke to Nathan in a vision which he had in the night, i.e. not in a dream, but in a waking condition, and durino; the niffht ; for li^^n^P^O ^s constantly distinguished from D^n, a revelation in a dream. Vers. 18-29. David's prayer and thanksgiving. — Ver. 18. King David came, i.e. went into the sanctuary erected upon Zion, and remained before Jehovah. 2^^^ remained, tarried (as 350 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. in Gen. xxiv. 55, xxix. 19, etc.), not ^^ sat;^ for the custom of sitting before the Lord in the sanctuary, as the posture assumed in prayer, cannot be deduced from Ex. xvii. 12, where Moses is compelled to sit from simple exhaustion. David's prayer consists of two parts, — thanksgiving for the promise (vers. 186-24), and supplication for its fulfilment (vers. 25-29). The thanksgiving consists of a confession of unworthiness of all the great things that the Lord had hitherto done for him, and which He had still further increased by this glorious promise (vers. 18-21), and praise to the Lord that all this had been done in proof of His true Deity, and to glorify His name upon His chosen people Israel. — Ver. 18Z>. " Who ayn I, 0 Lord Jehovah ? and who my house (i.e. my family), that Thou hast brought me hitherto ?" These words recal Jacob's prayer in Gen. xxxii. 10, " I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies," etc. David acknowledged himself to be unworthy of the great mercy which the Lord had displayed towards him, that he might give the glory to God alone (yid. Ps. viii. 5 and cxliv. 3). — Ver. 19. ^'Ä7id this is still too little in Thine eyes, 0 Lord Jeliovah, and Thou still speakest with regard to the house of Thy servant for a great while to comeV pirrinp^ lit. that which points to a remote period, i.e. that of the eternal establishment of my house and throne. "And this is the law of man, O Lo?'d Jehovah." " The law of man " is the law which deter- mines or regulates the conduct of man. Hence the meaning of these words, which have been very differently interpreted, cannot, with the context immediately preceding it, be any other than the following : This — namely, the love and condescension manifested in Thy treatment of Thy servant — is the law which applies to man, or is conformed to the law which men are to observe towards men, i.e. to the law. Thou shalt love thy neigh- bour as thyself (Lev. xix. 18, compare Micah vi. 8). With this interpretation, which is confirmed by the parallel text of the Chronicles (in ver. 17), " Thou sawest (i.e. visitedst me, or didst deal with me) according to the manner of man," the words are expressive of praise of the condescending grace of the Lord. " When God the Lord, in His treatment of poor mortals, follows the rule which He has laid down for the con- duct of men one towards another, when He shows himself kind and affectionate, this must fill with adoring amazement CHAP. VII. 18-29. 351 those who know themselves and God " (Hengstenberg). Luther is wrong in the rendering which he has adopted : "This is the manner of a man, who is God the Lord;" for "Lord Jehovah" is not an explanatory apposition to "man," but an address to God, as in the preceding and following clause. — Ver. 20. " And what more shall David speak to Thee ? Thou hwicest Thy servant, Lord Jehovah^ Instead of express- ing his gratitude still further in many words, David appeals to the omniscience of God, before whom his thankful heart lies open, just as in Ps. xl. 10 (compare also Ps. xvii. 3). — Yer. 21. ^^ For Thy word's sake, and according to Thy heart (and there- fore not because I am worthy of such grace), hast Thou done all this greatness, to make it knoiun to Thy servant^ The word, for the sake of which God had done such great things for David, must be some former promise on the part of God. Hengstenberg supposes it to refer to the word of the Lord to Samuel, "Eise up and anoint him" (1 Sam. xvi. 12), which is apparently favoured indeed by the parallel in the corresponding text of 1 Chron. xvii. 19, "for Thy servant's sake," i.e. because Thou hast chosen Thy servant. But even this variation must contain some special allusion which does not exclude a general interpretation of the expression " for Thy word's sake," viz. an allusion to the earlier promises of God, or the Messianic pro- phecies generally, particularly the one concerning Judah in Jacob's blessing (Gen. xlix. 10), and the one relating to the ruler out of Jacob in Balaam's sayings (Num. xxiv. 17 sqq.), which contain the germs of the promise of the everlasting continuance of David's government. For the fact that David recognised the connection between the promise of God com- municated to him by Nathan and Jacob's prophecy in Gen. xlix. 10, is evident from 1 Chron. xxviii. 4, where he refers to his election as king as being the consequence of the election of Judah as ruler. " According to Thine own heart " is equivalent to " according to Thy love and grace ; for God is gracious, merciful, and of great kindness and truth" (Ex. xxxiv. 6, compare Ps. ciii. 8). n^^"'? does not mean great things, but greatness. The praise of God commences in ver. 22 : " Wherefore Thou art great, Jehovah God; and there is not (one) like Thee, and no God beside Thee, according to all that we have heard with 352 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. our earsJ^ By the word " wherefore," i.e. because Thou hast done this, the praise of the singleness of God is set forth as the result of David's own experience. God is great when He manifests the greatness of His grace to men, and brings them to acknowledge it. And in these great deeds He proves the incomparable nature of His Deity, or that He alone is the true God. (For the fact itself, compare Ex. xv. 11 ; Deut. iii. 24, iv. 35.) — Ver. 23. " And where is (any) like Thy i^eople^ like Israel, a nation upon earth, which God loent to redeem as a people for himself, that He might make Him a name, and do great things for you, and terrible things for Thy land before Thy people, which Thou hast redeemed for Thee out of Egypt, (out of the) nations and their gods ?" "^p does not really mean tohere, but loho, and is to be connected with the words imme- diately following, viz. in^ ""ia (one nation) ; but the only way in which the words can be rendered into good English {German in the original : Tß.) is, " where is there any people," etc. The relative "itfX does not belong to '^'^Fil, which follows immediately afterwards; but, so far as the sense is concerned, it is to be taken as the object to nnsp, " which Elohim went to redeem." The construing of Elohim with a plural arises from the fact, that in this clause it not only refers to the true God, but also includes the idea of the gods of other nations. The idea, therefore, is not, " Is there any nation upon earth to which the only true God went?" but, "Is there any nation to which the deity wor- shipped by it went, as the true God went to Israel to redeem it for His own people "? " The rendering given in the Septuagint to ^37(1^ viz. oihr]^7]aev, merely arose from a misapprehension of the true sense of the words ; and the emendation "HV^'^j which some propose in consequence, would only distort the sense. The stress laid upon the incomparable character of the things which God had done for Israel, is merely introduced to praise and celebrate the God who did this as the only true God. (For the thought itself, compare the original passage in Deut. iv. 7, 34.) In the clause 23^ ^"^^^^ " and to do for you," David addresses the people of Israel with oratorical vivacity. Instead of saying "to do great things to (for) Israel," he says "to do great things to (for) 3/0M." For you forms an antithesis to him, " to make Him a name, and to do great things for you (Israel)." The suggestion made by some, that D2? is to be CHAP. VII. 18-29. 353 taken as a dativ. comm., and referred to EloJiim, no more needs a serious refutation than the alteration into DH?. There have been different opinions, however, as to the object referred to in the suffix attached to ^•»l^rj and it is difficult to decide between them ; for whilst the fact that ^V1*?? ^lixni (terrible things to Thy land) is governed by riib'yp (to do) favoure the allusion to Israel, and the sudden transition from the plural to the singular might be accounted for from the deep emotion of the person speaking, the words which follow ("before Thy people") rather favour the allusion to God, as it does not seem natural to take the suffix in two different senses in the two objects which follow so closely the one upon the other, viz. ^'for Thy land" and ^^ before Thy people;" whilst the way is prepared for a transition from speaking of God to speaking to God by the word D3? (to you). The words of Deut. x. 21 floated before the mind of David at the time, although he has given them a different turn. (On the " terrible things," see the commentary on Deut. x. 21 and Ex. xv. 11.) The connection of niNlj (terrible things) with "^-p*?? (to Thy land) shows that David had in mind, when speaking of the acts of divine omnipotence which had inspired fear and dread of the majesty of God, not only the miracles of God in Egypt, but also the marvellous extermination of the Canaanites, whereby Israel had been established in the possession of the promised land, and the people of God placed in a condition to found a kingdom. These acts were performed before Israel, before the nation, whom the Lord redeemed to himself out of Egypt. This view is confirmed by the last words, "nations and their gods," which are in apposition to " from Egypt," so that the preposition |p should be repeated before CjS (nations). The suffix to '^''>p^). (literally "and its gods") is to be regarded as distributive: " the gods of each of these heathen nations." In the Chronicles (ver. 21) the expression is simplified, and explained more clearly by the omission of " to Thy land," and the insertion of tTi^p, " to drive out nations from before Thy people." It has been erroneously inferred from this, that the text of our book is corrupt, and ought to be emended, or at any rate interpreted according to the Chronicles. But whilst ^^'l^r is certainly not to be altered into t^lj?, it is just as wrong to do as Hengsten- berg proposes, — namely, to take the thought expressed in lJ*w z 354 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. from the preceding Hib^y^ by assuming a zeugma ; for HE^y^ to do or make, has nothing in common with driving or clearing away. — Ver. 24. " And Thou hast established to thyself Thy people Israel to he a people unto Thee for ever: and Thou, Jehovah, hast become a God to them." The first clause does not refer merely to the liberation of Israel out of Egypt, or to the conquest of Canaan alone, but to all that the Lord had done for the establishment of Israel as the people of His possession, from the time of Moses till His promise of the eternal continuance of the throne of David. Jehovah had thereby become God to the nation of Israel, i.e. had thereby attested and proved him- self to be its God. To this praise of the acts of the Lord there is attached in vers. 25 sqq. the prayer for the fulfilment of His glorious promise. Would Jehovah set up (i.e. carry out) the word which He had spoken to His servant that His name might be great, i.e. be glorified, through its being said, " The Lord of Sabaoth is God over Israel," and "the house of Thy servant will be firm before Thee." The prayer is expressed in the form oi confident assurance. — Ver. 27. David felt himself encouraged to offer this prayer through the revelation which he had received. Because God had promised to build him a house, " therefore Thy servant hath found in his heart to pray this prayer," i.e. hath found joy in doing so. — Vers. 28, 29. David then briefly sums up the two parts of his prayer of thanks- giving in the two clauses commencing with nnyi^ " and now." — In ver. 28 he sums up the contents of vers. 186-24 by celebrat- ing the greatness of the Lord and His promise ; and in ver. 29 the substance of the prayer in vers. 25-27. 'ni^l ^^^^, may it please Thee to bless (?"'Kin ; see at Deut. i. 5). " And from (out of) Thy blessing may the house of Thy servant be blessed for ever." DAVID S WARS, VICTORIES, AND MINISTERS OF STATE. — CHAP. VIII. To the promise of the establishment of his throne there is appended a general enumeration of the wars by which David secured the supremacy of Israel over all his enemies round about. In this survey all the nations are included with which CHAP. VIII. 1. 355 war had ever been waged by David, and which he had con- quered and rendered tributary : the PhiHstines and Moabites, tlie Syrians of Zobah and Damascus, Toi of Hamath, the Ammonites, Amalekites, and Edomites. It is very evident from this, that the chapter before us not only treats of the wars which David carried on after receiving the divine promise mentioned in ch. vii., but of all the wars of his entire reign. The only one of which we have afterwards a fuller account is the war with the Ammonites and their allies the Syrians (ch. x. and xi.), and this is given on account of its connection with David's adultery. In the survey before us, the war with the Ammonites is only mentioned quite cursorily in ver. 12, in the account of the booty taken from the different nations, which David dedicated to the Lord. With regard to the other wars, so far as the principal purpose was concerned, — namely, to record the history of the kingdom of God, — it was quite sufficient to give a general state- ment of the fact that these nations were smitten by David and subjected to his sceptre. But if this chapter contains a survey of all the wars of David with the nations that were hostile to Israel, there can be no doubt that the arrangement of the several events is not strictly regulated by their chronological order, but that homogeneous events are grouped together according to a material point of view. There is a parallel to this chapter in 1 Chron. xviii. Ver. 1. Subjugation of the Philistines. — In the intro- ductory formula, " And it came to pass afterwards," the expres- sion " afterwards " cannot refer specially to the contents of ch. vii., for reasons also given, but simply serves as a general formula of transition to attach what follows to the account just completed, as a thing that happened afterwards. This is incon- testably evident from a comparison of ch. x. 1, where the war with the Ammonites and Syrians, the termination and result of which are given in the present chapter, is attached to what pre- cedes by the same formula, " It came to pass afterwards " (cf. ch. xiii. 1). " David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and took the bridle of the mother out of the hand of the Philistines,'' i.e. wrested the government from them and made them tribu- tary. The figurative expression Metheg-ammah, " bridle of the mother," i.e. the capital, has been explained by Alb. Schultens 356 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. (on Job XXX. 11) from an Arabic idiom, in which giving up one's bridle to another is equivalent to submitting to him. Gesenius also gives several proofs of this {Thes. p. 113). Others, for example Ewald, render it arm-bridle ; but there is not a single passage to support the rendering " arm " for ammah. The word is a feminine form of Di?, mother, and only- used in a tropical sense. " Mother " is a term applied to the chief city or capital, both in Arabic and Phoenician (cid. Ges. Thes. p. 112). The same figure is also adopted in Hebrew, where the towns dependent upon the capital are called its daughters {vid. Josh. xv. 45, 47). In 1 Chron. xviii. 1 the figurative expression is dropped for the more literal one : " David took Gath and its daughters out of the hand of the Philistines," i.e. he wrested Gath and the other towns from the Philistines. The Philistines had really five cities, every one with a prince of its own (Josh. xiii. 3). This was the case even in the time of Samuel (1 Sam. vi. 16, 17). But in the closing years of Samuel, Gath had a king who stood at the head of all the princes of the Philistines (1 Sam. xxix. 2 sqq., cf. xxvii. 2). Thus Gath became the capital of the land of the Philistines, which held the bridle (or reins) of Philistia in its own hand. The author of the Chronicles has therefore given the correct explanation of the figure. The one suggested by Ewald, Bertheau, and others, cannot be correct, — namely, that David wrested from the Philistines the power which they had hitherto exercised over the Israelites. The simple meaning of the passage is, that David wrested from the Philistines the power which the capital had possessed over the towns de- pendent upon it, i.e. over the whole of the land of Philistia ; in other words, he brought the capital (Gath) and the other towns of Philistia into his own power. The reference afterwards made to a king of Gath in the time of Solomon in 1 Kings ii. 39 is by no means at variance with this ; for the king alluded to was one of the tributary sovereigns, as we may infer from the fact that Solomon ruled over all the kings on this side of the Euphrates as far as to Gaza (1 Kings v. 1, 4). Ver. 2. Subjugation of Moab. — "^e smote Moah {i.e. the Moabites), and measured them with the line, making tliem lie down upon the ground^ and measured tivo lines (i.e. two parts) CHAP. VIII. 3-8. 357 to put to death, and one line full to keep alive." Nothing further is known about either the occasion or the history of this war, with the exception of the cursory notice in 1 Chron. xi. 22, that Benaiah, one of David's heroes, smote two sons of the king of Moab, which no doubt took place in the same war. In the earhest period of his flight from Saul, David had met with a hospitable reception from the king of Moab, and had even taken his parents to him for safety (1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4). But the Moabites must have very grievously oppressed the Israelites afterwards, that David should have inflicted a severer punishment upon them after their defeat, than upon any other of the nations that he conquered, with the exception of the Ammonites (ch. xii. 31), upon whom he took vengeance for having most shamefully insulted his ambassadors (ch. x. 2 sqq.). The punishment inflicted, however, was of course re- stricted to the fighting men who had been taken prisoners by the Israelites. They were ordered to lie down in a row upon the earth ; and then the row was measured for the purpose of putting two-thirds to death, and leaving one-third alive. The Moabites were then made " servants " to David (i.e. they became his subjects), ^'bringing gifts'^ {i.e. paying tribute). Vers. 3-8. Conquest and Subjugation of the King OF ZOBAH, and of THE DAMASCENE SYRIANS. — Ver. 3. The situation of Zobah cannot be determined. The view held by the Syrian church historians, and defended by Michaelis, viz. that Zobah was the ancient Nisibis in northern Mesopotamia, has no more foundation to rest upon than that of certain Jewish writers who suppose it to have been A leppo, the present Haleb. Aleppo is too far north for Zobah, and Nisibis is quite out of the range of the towns and tribes in connection with which the name of Zobah occurs. In 1 Sam. xiv. 47, com- pared with ver. 12 of this chapter, Zobah, or Aram Zobah as it is called in ch. x. 6 and Ps. Ix. 2, is mentioned along with Ammon, Moab, and Edom, as a neighbouring tribe and king- dom to the Israelites ; and, according to vers. 3, 5, and 9 of the present chapter, it is to be sought for in the vicinity of Damascus and Hamath towards the Euphrates. These data point to a situation to the north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and Euphrates, and in fact 358 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. extending as far as the latter according to ver. 3, whilst, according to ch. x. 16, it even reached beyond it with its vassal-chiefs into Mesopotamia itself. Ewald (^Gesch. iii. p. 195) has therefore combined Zohah, which was no doubt the capital, and gave its name to the kingdom, with the Sähe mentioned in Ptol. v. 19, — a town in the same latitude as Damascus, and farther east towards the Euphrates. The king of Zobah at the time referred to is called Hadadezer in the text (i.e. whose help is Hadad); but in ch. x. 16-19 and throughout the Chronicles he is called Hadarezer. The first is the original form ; for Hadad, the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, is met with in several other instances in Syrian names (yid. Movers, Phönizier). David smote this king ^^ as he toas going to restore his strength at the river (Euphrates)." iT» y^^n cloes not mean to turn his hand, but signifies to return his hand, to stretch it out again over or against any one, in all the passages in which the expression occurs. It is therefore to be taken in a derivative sense in the passage before us, as signifying to restore or re-establish his sway. The expression used in the Chronicles (ver, 3), n^ ^''^n, has just the same meaning, since establishing or making fast presupposes a previous weakening or dissolution. Hence the subject of the sentence "as he went," etc., must be Hadadezer and not David; for David could not have extended his power to the Euphrates before the defeat of Hadadezer. The Masoretes have inter- polated P'rath (Euphrates) after " the river" as in the text of the Chronicles. This is correct enough so far as the sense is concerned, but it is by no means necessary, as the nahar (the river k. i^.) is quite sufficient of itself to indicate the Euphrates. There is also a war between David and Hadadezer and other kings of Syria mentioned in ch. x.; and the commentators all admit that that war, in which David defeated these kings when they came to the help of the Ammonites, is connected with the war mentioned in the present chapter. But the con- nection is generally supposed to be this, that the first of David's Aramaean wars is given in ch. viii., the second in ch. x. ; for no other reason, however, than because ch. x. stands after ch. viii. This view is decidedly an erroneous one. According to the chapter before us, the war mentioned there terminated in the complete subjugation of the Aramasan kings and king- CHAP. VIII. 3-8. 359 doms. Aram became subject to David, paying tribute (ver. 6;. Now, though the revolt of subjugated nations from their con querors is by no means a rare thing in history, and therefore it is perfectly conceivable in itself that the Aramaeans should have fallen away from David when he was involved in the war with the Ammonites, and should have gone to the help of the Ammonites, such an assumption is precluded by the fact that there is nothing in ch. x. about any falling away or revolt of the Aramaeans from David ; but, on the contrary, these tribes appear to be still entirely independent of David, and to be hired by the Ammonites to fight against him. But what is absolutely decisive against this assumption, is the fact that the number of Aramaeans killed in the two wars is precisely the same (compare ver. 4 with ch. x. 18) : so that it may safely be inferred, not only that the war mentioned in ch. x., in which the Aramaeans who had come to the help of the Ammonites were smitten by David, was the very same as the Aramaean war mentioned in ch. viii., but of which the result only is given ; but also that all the wars which David waged with the Ara- maeans, like his war with Edom (vers. 13 sqq.), arose out of the Ammonitish war (ch. x.), and the fact that the Ammonites enlisted the help of the kings of Aram against David (ch. x. 6). ^Ve also obtain from ch. x. an explanation of the expression " as he went to restore his power (Eng. Ver. ' recover his border') at the river," since it is stated there that Hadadezer was defeated by Joab the first time, and that, after sustaining this defeat, he called the Aramaeans on the other side of the Euphrates to his assistance, that he might continue the war against Israel with renewed vigour (ch. x. 13, 15 sqq.). The power of Hadadezer had no doubt been crippled by his first defeat ; and in order to restore it, he procured auxiliary troops from Mesopotamia with which to attack David, but he was defeated a second time, and obliged to submit to him (ch. x. 17, 18). In this second engagement "David took from him (i.e. captured) seventeen hundred horse-soldiers and twenty thousand fooV (ver. 4, compare ch. x. 18). This decisive battle took place, according to 1 Chron. xviii. 3, in the neighbourhood of Hamath, i.e. Epiphania on the Orontes (see at Num. xiii. 21, and Gen. x. 18), or, according to ch. x. 18 of this book, at Helam, — a difference which may easily be reconciled by the 360 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. simple assumption that the unknown Helam was soi .|,j}gf near to Hamath. Instead of 1700 horse-soldiers, wl •. ,-<.„ the Chronicles (1, xviii. 4) 1000 chariots and 7000 h( .^men. Consequently the word receb has no doubt dropped out after ^^X in the text before us, and the numeral denoting a thousand has been confounded with the one used to denote a hundred ; for in tiie plains of Syria seven thousand horsemen would be a much juster proportion to twenty thousand foot than se ^teen hundred. (For further remarks, see at ch. x. 18.) And David lamed all the cavalry^'' i.e. he made the war-char* cs and cavalry perfectly useless by laming the horses (see at Josh. xi. 6, 9), — " and only left a hundred horses J' The word / eb in these clauses signifies the war-horses generally, — not merely the carriage-horses, but the riding-horses as well, — as the meaning cavalry is placed beyond all doubt by Isa. xxi. 7, and it can hardly be imagined that David would have spared the riding- horses. — Vers. 5, 6. After destroying the main force of Hadad- ezer, David turned against his ally, against Aram-Damascus^ i.e. the Aramaeans, whose capital was Damascus. Dammesek (for which we have Darmesek in the Chronicles according to its Aramaean form), Damascus, a very ancient and still a very important city of Syria, standing upon the Chrysorrhoa 'Phar- par), which flows through the centre of it. It is situated in the midst of paradisaical scenery, on the eastern side of the Anti- libanus, on the road which unites Western Asia with the inte- rior. David smote 22,000 Syrians of Damascus, placed garrisons in the kingdom, and made it subject and tributary. 0"'?''^^ are not governors or officers, but military posts, garrisons, as in 1 Sam. X. 5, xiii. 3. — Ver. 7. Of the booty taken in these wars, David carried the golden shields which he took fi'om the ser- vants, i.e. the governors and vassal princes, of Hadadezer, to Jerusalem.^ Shelet signifies "a shield," according to the Targums ^ The Septuagint has this additional clause : " And Shishak the king of Egypt took them away, when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon," which is neither to be found in the Chronicles nor in any other ancient version, and is merely an inference drawn by the Greek translator, or by some copyist of the LXX., from 1 Kings xiv. 25-28, taken in connection with the fact that the application of the brass is given in 1 Chron. xviii. 8. But, in the first place, the author of this gloss has overlooked the fact that the golden shields of Rehoboam which Shishak carried away, were not those captured by David, but those CHAP. VIII. 3-8. 361 doms. bins, and this meaning is applicable to all the passages Now '^ the word occurs ; whilst the meaning " equivalent " cannoL oe sustained either by the rendering iravoirkia adopted by Aquila and Symmachus in 2 Kings xi. 10, or by the render- ings of the Vulgate, viz. arma in loc. and armatura in Song of Sol. iv. 4, or by an appeal to the etymology {yid. Gesenius' Thes. and Dietrich's Lexicon). — Ver. 8. And from the cities of Beta<^ 'and Berothai David took very much brass, with wdiich, accoi g to 1 Chron. xviii. 8, Solomon made the brazen sea, and th-ibrazen columns and vessels of the temple. The LXX. have also interpolated this notice into the text. The name Betac. J»« given as Tihhath in the Chronicles ; and for Berothai we have Chun. As the towns themselves are unknown, it can- not be decided with certainty which of the forms and names are the correct and original ones. ntpiiD appears to have been written by mistake for n^tsp. This supposition is favoured by the rendering of the LXX., e/c tt}^ MejeßaK ; and by that of the Syriac also (viz. Tehach). On the other hand, the occur- rence of the name Tebah among the sons of Nahor the Aramcean in Gen. xxii. 24 proves little or nothing, as it is not known that he founded a family which perpetuated his name ; nor can any- thing ^ ■ inferred from the fact that, according to the more modern maps, there is a town of Tayiheh to the north of Damas- cus in 35° north lat., as there is very little in common between the names Tayiheh and Tebah. Ewald connects Berothai w ith the Barathena of Ptol. v. 19 in the neighbourhood of Saba. The connection is a possible one, but it is not sufficiently certain to warrant. us in founding any conclusions upon it with regard to the name Chun which occurs in the Chronicles ; so that there is which Solomon had had made, according to 1 Kings x. 16, for the retainers of his palace ; and in the second place, he has not observed that, according to ver. 11 of this chapter, and also of the Chronicles, David dedicated to the Lord all the gold and silver that he had taken, i.e. put it iu the trea- sury of the sanctuary to be reserved for the future temple, and that at the end of his reign he handed over to his son and successor Solomon all the gold, silver, iron, and brass that he had collected for the purpose, to be applied to the building of the temple (1 Chron. xxii. 14 sqq., xxix. 2 sqq.). Consequently the clause in question, which Thenius would adopt from the Septuagint into our own text, is nothing more than the production of a presumptiious Alexandrian, whose error lies upon the very surface, so that the question of its genuineness cannot for a moment be entertained. 362 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. no ground whatever for the opinion that it is a corruption of Berothai. Vers. 9-12. After the defeat of the king of Zobah and his alHe?, Toi king of Hamath sought for David's friendship, sending his son to salute him, and conveying to him at the same time a considerable present of vessels of silver, gold, and brass. The name Toi is written Tou in the Chronicles, accord- ing to a different mode of interpretation ; and the name of the son is given as Hadoram in the Chronicles, instead of Joram as in the text before us. The former is evidently the true reading, and Joram an error of the pen, as the Israelitish name Joram is not one that we should expect to find among Aramaeans ; whilst Hadoram occurs in 1 Chron. i. 21 in the midst of Arabic names, and it cannot be shown that the Hadoram or Adoram mentioned in 2 Chron. x. 18 and 1 Kings xii. 18 was a man of Israelitish descent. The primary object of the mission was to salute David ("to ask him of peace;" cf. Gen. xliii. 27, etc.), and to congratulate him upon his victory ("to bless him because he had fought," etc.) ; for Toi had had wars with Hadadezer. "^ ')nan of war s^^ signifies a man who wages wars (cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 3 ; Isa. xlii. 13). According to 1 Chron. xviii. 3, the territory of the king of Hamath bordered upon that of Hadad- ezer, and the latter had probably tried to make king Toi submit to him. The secret object of the salutation, however, was no doubt to secure the friendship of this new and powerful neigh- bour.— Vers. 11, 12. David also sanctified Toi's presents to the Lord (handed them over to the treasury of the sanctuary), together with the silver and ijold which he had sanctified from all the conquered nations, from Aram, Moab, etc. Instead of {^'^^pn -IC'X the text of the Chronicles has NK'J IB'K, which he • ; • V -; TT V —,J took, i.e. took as booty. Both are equally correct ; there is simply a somewhat different turn given to the thought.^ In the enumeration of the conquered nations in ver. 12, the text of the Chronicles differs from that of the book before us. In the ^ Bertheau erroneously maintains that xbj "IK'X, which he took, is at variance with 2 Sam. viii. 7, as, according to this passage, the golden shields of Hadadezer did not become the property of the Lord. But there is not a word to that effect in 2 Sam. viii. 7. On the contrary, his taking the shields to Jerusalem implies, rather than precludes, the intention to devote them to the purposes of the sanctuary. CHAP. VIII. 13, 14. 3d3 first place, we find "from Edom^' instead of "from Aram ;" and secondly, the clause " and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Behob king of Zobah,'^ is altogether wanting there. The text of the Chronicles is certainly faulty here, as the name of Aram (Syria) could not possibly be omitted. Edom could much better be left out, not " because the conquest of Edom belonged to a later period," as Movers maintains, but because the con- quest of Edom is mentioned for the first time in the subsequent verses. But if we bear in mind that in ver. 12 of both texts not only are those tribes enumerated the conquest of which had been already noticed, but all the tribes that David ever defeated and subjugated, even the Ammonites and Amalekites, to the war with whom no allusion whatever is made in the present chapter, we shall see that Edom could not be omitted. Consequently " from Syria " must have dropped out of the text of the Chronicles, and "from Edom^' out of the one before us ; so that the text in both instances ran originally thus, " from Syria, and from Edom, and from Moab." For even in the text before us, " from Aram" (Syria) could not well be omitted, notwithstanding the fact that the booty of Hadadezer is specially mentioned at the close of the verse, for the simple reason that David not only made war upon Syria-Zobah (the kingdom of Hadadezer) and subdued it, but also upon Syria- Damascus, which was quite independent of Zobah. Vers. 13, 14. " A7id David made (himself) a name, when he returned from smiting (i.e. from the defeat of) Aram, (and smote Edom) in the valley of Salt,' eighteen thousand men." The words enclosed in brackets are wanting in the Masoretic text as it has come down to us, and must have fallen out from a mistake of the copyist, whose eye strayed from D"JX"nK to DHSTIX ; for though the text is not " utterly unintelligible " without these words, since the passage might be rendered " after he had smitten Aram in the valley of Salt eighteen thousand men," yet this would be decidedly incorrect, as the Aramaeans were not smitten in the valley of Salt, but partly at Medeha (1 Chron. xix. 7) and Helam (ch. x. 17), and partly in their own land, which was very far away from the Salt valley. Moreover, the difficulty presented by the text cannot be removed, as Movers supposes, by changing D"iK"nx (Syria) into DilKTiX (Edom), as the expression Üt^'3 ("when he returned") would still be un 364 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. explained. The facts were probably these : Whilst Davici, or rather Israel, was entangled in the war with the Ammonites and Aramseans, the Edomites seized upon the opportunity, which appeared to them a very favourable one, to invade the land of Israel, and advanced as far as the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. As soon, therefore, as the Aramseans were defeated and subjugated, and the Israelitish army had returned from this war, David ordered it to march against the Edomites, and defeated them in the valley of Salt. This valley cannot have been any other than the Ghor adjoining the Salt mountain on the south of the Dead Sea, which really separates the ancient territories of Judah and Edom (Robinson, Pal. ii. 483). There Amaziah also smote the Edomites at a later period (2 Kings xiv. 7). We gather more concerning this war of David from the text of the Chronicles (ver. 12) taken in connection with I Kings xi. 15, 16, and Ps. Ix. 2. According to the Chronicles, it was Abishai the son of Zeruiah who smote the Edomites. This agrees very well not only with the account in ch. x. 10 sqq., to the effect that Abishai commanded a company in the war with the Syrians and Ammonites under the generalship of his brother Joab, but also with the heading to Ps. Ix., in which it is stated that Joab returned after the defeat of Aram, and smote the Edomites in the valley of Salt, twelve thousand men ; and with 1 Kings xi. 15, 16, in which we read that when David was in Edom, Joab, the captain of the host, came up to bury the slain, and smote every male in Edom, and remained six months in Edom with all Israel, till he had cut off every male in Edom. From this casual but yet elaborate notice, we learn that the war with the Edomites was a very obstinate one, and was not terminated all at once. The difference as to the number slain, which is stated to have been 18,000 in the text before us and in the Chronicles, and 12,000 in the heading to Ps. Ix., may be explained in a very simple manner, on the supposition that the reckonings made were only approximative, and yielded different results ;^ and the fact that David is named ^ Michaelis adduces a case in point from the Seven Years' War. After the battle of Lissa, eight or twelve thousand men were reported to have been taken prisoners ; but when they were all counted, including those who fell into the hands of the conquerors on the second, third, and fourth days of the flight, the number amounted to 22,000. CHAP. VIII. 15-18. 365 as the victor in the verse before us, Joah in Ps. Ix., and Ahishai in the Chronicles, admits of a very easy explanation after what has just been observed. The Chronicles contain the most literal account. Abishai smote the Edomites as commander of the men engaged, Joab as commander-in-chief of the whole army, and David as king and supreme governor, of whom the writer of the Chronicles affirms, " The Lord helped David in all his undertakings." After the defeat of the Edomites, David placed garrisons in the land, and made all Edom subject to himself. Vers. 15-18. David's Ministers. — To the account of David's wars and victories there is appended a list of his official attendants, which is introduced with a general remark as to the spirit of his government. As king over all Israel, David continued to execute right and justice. — Ver. 16. The chief ministers were the following : — Joah (see at ch. ii. 18) was " over the army^^ i.e. commander-in-chief. Jelioshaphat the son of Ahilud, of whom nothing further is known, was mazcir, chancellor ; not merely the national annalist, according to the Septuagint and Vulgate (c'ttI rwv vTrofivijfjidTcov, vTrofxvrjfxaro- 7pa<^09 ; a cominentariis), i.e. the recorder of the most important incidents and affairs of the nation, but an officer resembling the magister memorice of the later Romans, or the loaka nuvis of the Persian court, who keeps a record of everything that takes place around the king, furnishes him with an account of all that occurs in the kingdom, places his vise upon all the king's commands, and keeps a special protocol of all these things (yid. Chardin, Voyages v. p. 258, and Paulsen, Regierung der Morgenländer, pp. 279-80). — Ver. 17. Zadok the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar (1 Chron. v. 34, vi. 37, 38), and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were cohanim, i.e. officiating high priests ; the former at the tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chron. xvi. 39), the latter probably at the ark of the covenant upon Mount Zion. Instead of Ahimelech, the Chronicles have Ahimelech, evidently through a copyist's error, as the name is written Ahimelech in 1 Chron. xxiv. 3, 6. But the expression ^^ Ahimelech the son of Ahiathar" is apparently a very strange one, as Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech according to 1 Sam. xxii. 20, and in other passages Zadok and Ahiathar are men- 366 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. tioned as the two high priests in the time of David (ch. x-v. 24, 35, xvii. 15, xix. 12, xx. 25). This difference cannot be set aside, as Movers, Thenius, Ewald, and others suppose, by transposing the names, so as to read Abiathar the son of Ahimelech ; for such a solution is precluded by the fact that, in 1 Chron. xxiv. 3, 6, 31, Ahimelech is mentioned along with Zadok as head of the priests of the line of Ithamar, and accord- ing to ver. 6 he was the son of Abiathar. It would therefore be necessary to change the name Ahimelech into Abiathar in this instance also, both in ver. 3 and ver. 6, and in the latter to transpose the two names. But there is not the slightest probability in the supposition that the names have been changed in so many passages. We are therefore disposed to adopt the view held by Bertheau and Oehler, viz. that Abiathar the high priest, the son of Ahimelech, had also a son named Ahimelech, as it is by no means a rare occurrence for grandfather and grandson to have the same names {vid. 1 Chron. v. 30-41), and also that this (the younger) Ahimelech performed the duties of high priest in connection with his father, who was still living at the commencement of Solomon's reign (1 Kings ii. 27), and is mentioned in this capacity, along with Zadok, both here and in the book of Chronicles, possibly because Abiathar was ill, or for some other reason that we cannot dis- cover. As Abiathar was thirty or thirty-five years old at the time when his father was put to death by Saul, according to what has already been observed at 1 Sam. xiv. 3, and forty years old at the death of Saul, he was at least forty-eight years old at the time when David removed his residence to Mount Zion, and might have had a son of twenty-five years of age, namely the Ahimelech mentioned here, who could have taken his father's place in the performance of the functions of high priest when he was prevented by illness or other causes. The appearance of a son of Abiathar named Jonathan in ch. xv. 27, xvii. 17, 20, is no valid argument against this solution of the apparent discrepancy ; for, according to tliese passages, he was still very young, and may therefore have been a younger brother of Ahimelech. The omission of any allusion to Ahimelech in connection with Abiathar's conspiracy with Adonijah against Solomon (1 Kings i. 42, 43), and the reference to his son Jonathan alone, might be explained on the supposition that CHAP. VIII. 15-18. 367, Ahimelecli had already died. But as there is no reference to Jonathan at the time when his father was deposed, no stress is to be laid upon the omission of any reference to Ahimelech. Moreover, when Abiathar was deposed after Solomon had ascended the throne, he must have been about eighty years of age. Seraiah was a scribe. Instead of Seraiak, we have Shavsha in the corresponding text of the Chronicles, and Sheva in the parallel passage ch. xx. 25. Whether the last name is merely a mistake for Shavsha, occasioned by the dropping of K', or an abbreviated form of Shisha and Shavsha, cannot be decided. Shavsha is not a copyist's error, for in 1 Kings iv. 3 the same man is unquestionably mentioned again under the name of Shisha, who is called Shavsha in the Chronicles, Sheva {^\^) in the text of ch. xx. 25, and here Seraiah. Seraiah also is hardly a copyist's error, but another form for Shavsha or Shisha. The scribe was a secretary of state ; not a military officer, whose duty it was to raise and muster the troops, for the technical expression for mustering the people was not "i2p, but "ipS (cf. ch. xxiv. 2, 4, 9 ; 1 Chron. xxi. 5, 6, etc.). Ver. 18. Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, a very brave hero of Kabzeel (see at ch. xxiii. 20 sqq.), was over the Crethi and Plethi. Instead of ''J^'?.?'!!''!, which gives no sense, and must be connected in some way with 1 Kings i. 38, 44, we must read wan bv according to the parallel passage ch. xx. 23, and the corresponding text of the Chronicles. The Crethi and Plethi were the king's body-guard, a(ofjbaTO(jiv\aKe