1 Samuel 13
God’s people can forfeit their privilege and blessing by foolishly disobeying the Lord’s word.
Key Themes of 1 Samuel 13:1–15
- The Lord expects Saul to obey his prophetic command.
- Disobedience results in the loss of Saul’s royal dynasty.
The rejection of Eli’s priestly dynasty in favor of a new one established a pattern that is repeated with Saul. Just as God withdrew his promise of dynastic succession from Eli and gave it to another (2:30–36), so he will do with Saul (13:13–14). The house of Saul will not be able to appeal to God’s election as unconditional, for Eli’s experience has demonstrated that disobedience can result in forfeiture of the divine promise. The Lord has the sovereign right to reject rebels and to accomplish his purposes through other and more-worthy instruments.
v.1
Saul was [thirty] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel [forty-] two years.
v.2
Saul chose three thousand men from Israel; two thousand were with him at Micmash and in the hill country of Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan at Gibeah in Benjamin. The rest of the men he sent back to their homes.
v.3
Jonathan attacked the Philistine outpost at Geba, and the Philistines heard about it. Then Saul had the trumpet blown throughout the land and said, “Let the Hebrews hear!“
v.4
So all Israel heard the news: “Saul has attacked the Philistine outpost, and now Israel has become a stench to the Philistines.” And the people were summoned to join Saul at Gilgal.
v.5
The Philistines assembled to fight Israel, with three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They went up and camped at Micmash, east of Beth Aven.
v.6
When the men of Israel saw that their situation was critical and that their army was hard pressed, they hid in caves and thickets, among the rocks, and in pits and cisterns.
v.7
Some Hebrews even crossed the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear.
v.8
He waited seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and Saul’s men began to scatter.
Some argue that Samuel does arrive within the specified time, but this seems unlikely. By using the precise wording of 10:8 (“wait seven days”) and then identifying this as “the time set by Samuel,” the narrator seems to emphasize that Saul does indeed wait for the specified period. Saul’s statement in verse 11, which uses the same term (mo‘ed) for the set time, appears to be technically correct, even though Samuel arrives just as Saul finishes the offering. Saul’s sin is not that he offers the sacrifice prematurely (because he does wait until the time set by Samuel is up). His sin is that he disrespects Samuel’s authority by offering the sacrifice himself. In 10:8 Samuel makes it clear that he himself is the one who will offer the sacrifice and give Saul his orders. Samuel’s earlier statement does not imply that a tardy arrival gives Saul the authority to do as he pleases. That is sheer presumption, born out of panic (see vv. 11–13).
v.9
So he said, “Bring me the burnt offering and the fellowship offerings. ” And Saul offered up the burnt offering.
v.10
Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet him.
v.11
“What have you done?” asked Samuel. Saul replied, “When I saw that the men were scattering, and that you did not come at the set time, and that the Philistines were assembling at Micmash,
v.12
I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the LORD’s favor.’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.”
On closer inspection, Saul’s viewpoint is flawed in at least three important ways: (1) His concern about his dwindling forces reveals a belief that human armies, not the Lord, will decide the battle (in this regard recall Judg. 7). (2) His concern with offering a sacrifice reveals a faulty theology that elevates ritual above obedience (see 15:22–23) and tends to think that ritual can in some way guarantee divine favor. (3) Saul oversteps his bounds. He is the king, but he is under the authority of the prophet-priest Samuel, who is the intercessor for the nation (cf. 7:7–11; 12:18–19, 23). In Deuteronomy 17–18, where the regulations of Israelite kingship are given (17:14–20; cf. 1 Sam. 10:25), the king’s role is clearly distinguished from that of the priests (Deut. 18:1–13) and the prophets (18:14–22). As noted above, Samuel has made it clear that he will offer the sacrifices (cf. 10:8) and that he, in his prophetic capacity, will give the king instructions. Even the girls whom Saul met when he entered Samuel’s town recognized Samuel’s authority in this regard (9:13). Ironically, their statement that “the people will not begin eating until” Samuel the man of God / seer (cf. 9:10–11) arrives to “bless the sacrifice” anticipates Saul’s failure to obey Samuel. This lack of respect for the prophetic office subsequently becomes a major issue in Israel and a prominent theme in the Former Prophets.
v.13
“You acted foolishly,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time.
v.14
But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.”
It was always God’s intention for Israel to have a king (cf. Deut 17:14-20). However, it was to be God’s choice (cf. Deut 17:15). Yet when the time came, Israel wanted a king “like all the other nations” (1 Sam 8:5). Their desire to be like the other nations tainted the entire process. God gave them the king of their choice, and it did NOT turn out well. In contrast, after Saul had disqualified his kingship, Samuel related that God would now pick a king “after his own heart” (i.e., his choice).
This understanding also seems confirmed by Akkadian parallels which use similar language to communicate the choosing of a king. For example, in the East India House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II, we read, “I, his eldest son, the chosen of his heart…”
Another example is the Babylonian Chronicle which relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s choice of king Zedekiah (not mentioned by name in the Chronicle). After deposing Jehoiachin in 598 BC, the Chronicle reads, “He appointed therein a king of his own heart.”
These Akkadian parallels show us is that it is preferred to take the phrase, “a man after God’s own heart” as a reference to God’s choice of kingship. In other words, David was God’s choice for king. This means the phrase a man after God’s own heart does not relate to moral quality of David in and of itself.
v.15
Then Samuel left Gilgal and went up to Gibeah in Benjamin, and Saul counted the men who were with him. They numbered about six hundred.
v.16
Saul and his son Jonathan and the men with them were staying in Gibeah in Benjamin, while the Philistines camped at Micmash.
v.17
Raiding parties went out from the Philistine camp in three detachments. One turned toward Ophrah in the vicinity of Shual,
v.18
another toward Beth Horon, and the third toward the borderland overlooking the Valley of Zeboim facing the desert.
v.19
Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!“
v.20
So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened.
v.21
The price was two thirds of a shekel for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads.
v.22
So on the day of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in his hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.
v.23
Now a detachment of Philistines had gone out to the pass at Micmash.