1 Samuel 13

eyes” (Judg. 21:25; see 17:6; 18:1; 19:1). The “nation” of Israel was a loose confederation of sovereign tribes, and each tribe was expected to seek the Lord and do His will.

Asking for a king (vv. 1–9). Knowing that Israel needed a stronger central government, the elders presented their request to Samuel and backed it up with several arguments. The first two must have cut Samuel to the quick: he was now old and had no successor, and his two sons were not godly men but took bribes (1 Sam. 8:3–5). How tragic that both Eli and Samuel had sons who failed to follow the Lord. Eli was too easy on his wayward sons (2:29), and perhaps Samuel was away from home too much as he made his ministry circuit to the cities. Samuel’s sons were miles away in Beersheba where their father couldn’t monitor their work, but if the elders knew about their sins, surely their father must have known also.

When the elders asked to have a king “like all the nations” (8:5, 20), they were forgetting that Israel’s strength was to be unlike the other nations. The Israelites were God’s covenant people and He was their King. The glory of God dwelt in their midst and the law of God was their wisdom. (See Ex. 19:3–6; 33:15–16; Lev. 18: and 20:26; Num. 23:9.) But the elders were concerned about national security and protection from the enemies around them. The Philistines were still a powerful nation, and the Ammonites were also a threat (1 Sam. 12:12). Israel had no standing army and no king to lead it. The elders forgot that it was the Lord who was Israel’s King and who gave her army the ability to defeat the enemy.

Samuel was a man of spiritual insight and he knew that this demand for a king was evidence of spiritual decay among the leaders. They weren’t rejecting him; they were rejecting God, and this grieved Samuel’s heart as he prayed to the Lord for wisdom. This wasn’t the first time the people had rejected their Lord. At Sinai, their request was “Make us gods!” (Ex. 32:1), and after their humiliating failure at Kadesh Barnea, they said, “Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt” (Num. 14:4). Whenever leadership in a church decays spiritually, that church becomes more like the world and uses the world’s methods and resources to try to do God’s work. The Jewish leaders in Samuel’s day had no faith that God could defeat their enemies and protect His people, so they chose to lean on the arm of flesh.

God is never surprised by what His people do, nor is He at a loss to know what He should do. “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:10–11 nkjv). There is every evidence in the Pentateuch that Israel would one day have a king. God promised Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob that kings would be among their descendants (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11), and Jacob had named Judah as the kingly tribe (49:10). Moses prepared the nation for a king when he spoke to the new generation preparing to enter the Promised Land (Deut. 17:14–20).

It wasn’t Israel’s request for a king that was their greatest sin; it was their insisting that God give them a king immediately. The Lord had a king in mind for them, David the son of Jesse, but the time wasn’t ripe for him to appear. So, the Lord gave them their request by appointing Saul to be king, and He used Saul to chasten the nation and prepare them for David, the man of His choice. The fact that Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin and not from Judah is evidence enough that he was never expected to establish a dynasty in Israel. “So in my anger I gave you a king, and in my wrath I took him away” (Hos. 13: niv). The greatest judgment God can give us is to let us have our own way. “And He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul” (Ps. 106: nkjv). However, the Lord wanted His people to go into this new venture with their eyes open, so He commanded Samuel to tell them what it would cost them to have a king.

Paying for a king (vv. 10–22). What’s true of individuals is true of nations: you take what you want from life and you pay for it. Under the kingship of Jehovah God, the nation had security and sufficiency as long as they obeyed Him, and His demands were not unreasonable. To obey God’s covenant meant to live a happy life as the Lord gave you all that you needed and more. But the key word in Samuel’s speech is take, not give. The king and his court had to be supported, so he would take their sons and daughters, their property, their harvests, and their flocks and herds. Their choice young men would serve in the army as well as in the king’s fields. Their daughters would cook and bake for the king. He would take their property and part of their harvest in order to feed the officials and servants in the royal household. While these things weren’t too evident under Saul and David, they were certainly obvious under Solomon (1 Kings 4:7–28). The day came when the people cried out for relief from the heavy yoke Solomon had put on them just to maintain the glory of his kingdom (12:1–4; see Jer. 22:13–17).

In spite of these warnings, the people insisted that God give them a king. Pleasing the Lord wasn’t the thing uppermost in their minds; what they wanted was guaranteed protection against their enemies. They wanted someone to judge them and fight their battles, someone they could see and follow. They found it too demanding to trust an invisible God and obey His wonderful commandments. In spite of all the Lord had done for Israel from the call of Abraham to the conquest of the Promised Land, they turned their back on Almighty God and chose to have a frail man to rule over them.

Saul and the people rejoiced greatly over the deliverance of Jabesh Gilead from the Ammonites, and

Saul was careful to give the glory to the Lord (11:13). Samuel saw the victory as a great opportunity to “renew the kingdom” (v. 14) and remind the people that Jehovah God was still their King. The fact that Saul had led the army in a great victory would tempt the Israelites to put their faith in their new king, and Samuel wanted them to know that their future success rested in trusting Jehovah alone. The king was only God’s servant for the people, and both king and people had to obey God’s covenant. In his farewell message, Samuel defended his own ministry (vv. 1–5), reviewed God’s mercies to Israel (vv. 6–11), and admonished the people to fear the Lord and obey the covenant (vv. 12–25). Samuel mentions the Lord at least thirty times in this message, because his heart’s desire was to see the people return to the Lord and honor His covenant.

The narrative in chapters 13–15 focuses on Saul’s early reign, especially his relationship to God and to Samuel. We see Saul making foolish and unwise decisions and trying to cover his disobedience with lies. It was the beginning of that tragic decline that ended in a witch’s house and Saul’s suicide on the battlefield. At chapter 16, David will come on the scene and the book will describe Saul’s deepening conflict with God, himself, and David. We can trace the downward steps in his tragic failure.

Pride (vv. 1–4). Saul had reigned two years when he began to establish a standing army. Over 300,000 men had volunteered to deliver the people of Jabesh Gilead (11:8), but Saul chose only 3,000 and divided them between himself and his son Jonathan. Saul’s camp was at Michmash and Jonathan’s was about fifteen miles away in Gibeah. The fact that Israel was mustering an army put the Philistines on the alert. They had garrisons in different parts of the country and monitored the situation carefully.

It is as a brave and victorious soldier that Jonathan is introduced to us. When he attacked and defeated the Philistine outpost at Geba, it was a declaration of war, and the Philistines were quick to respond. This was the beginning of Israel’s war of liberation, although it wasn’t finished until after David became king. But who blew the trumpet and seemed to take the credit for the victory? Saul, son of Kish! As commander-in-chief, he was calling for more men, because he knew that many battles lay ahead, but we wish he had given proper credit to his courageous son.

Why did Saul call his fellow Israelites “the Hebrews” instead of “men of Israel”? The name may have come from Abraham’s ancestor Eber (Gen. 10:21), or perhaps from the word meaning “to cross over.” The ancestors of Abraham were those who “crossed over the River Euphrates” (Josh. 24:2–3). Canaan was “the land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15); the Egyptians would not eat with “the Hebrews” (43:32); an Egyptian “beat one of the Hebrews” (Ex. 2:11). In Scripture, the word is used primarily by foreigners speaking to or of the Jews, or by the Jews speaking to foreigners about themselves. You get the impression that the word “Hebrew” was often used as a term of contempt. Did Saul not have respect for his people? Whatever reason he had for using the word, his command was clear: gather together at Gilgal, the place that Samuel had appointed (1 Sam. 10:8ff.).

Unbelief and impatience (vv. 5–9). The Philistine forces gathered at Michmash, less than twenty miles west of Gilgal, and it was obvious that Saul and his army were greatly outnumbered. Saul’s men began to hide and even deserted the army by crossing the river, and those who remained were paralyzed with fright. As Samuel had commanded, Saul waited for seven days (10:8), and the longer he waited, the more concerned he became. His army was melting away, the enemy was mobilizing, and the situation was hopeless.

Why did Samuel tarry? Was he deliberately trying to make Saul fail, or was he just reminding the new king who was still in control? Samuel had nothing to gain if Saul failed on the battlefield, and Samuel knew that God was in control, even in the appointment of the new king. Furthermore, this meeting had been planned some two years before (v. 8), and no doubt Samuel had reminded Saul of it more than once. This rendezvous was the Lord’s way of testing Saul’s faith and patience. Without faith and patience, we can’t receive what the Lord promises (Heb. 6:12), and unbelief and impatience are marks of spiritual immaturity (James 1:1–8). Until we learn to trust God and wait on His timing, we can’t learn the other lessons He wants to teach us, nor can we receive the blessings He’s planned for us. Saul may have been handsome, strong, and taller than the other men, but if he didn’t have a heart that was right with God, he didn’t have anything. It’s one thing to be victorious when you’re leading an army of over 300,000 men (1 Sam. 11:8), but quite another thing when you have only 600 (v. 15)! But this is where faith comes in.

Saul didn’t want to go into the battle without first offering a sacrifice to the Lord, which in itself may have been a subtle form of superstition, like carrying the ark into the battle. Later Samuel would remind Saul that God seeks obedience and not sacrifice (15:22). Without waiting for God’s appointed priest, Saul offered the sacrifice, and just then Samuel arrived in the camp. If Saul had waited just a few minutes more, everything would have been all right, but his impatience cost him dearly.

Deception (vv. 10–12). As Saul decays in character, we shall see him deceiving himself and others more and more. His first deception at Gilgal occurred when he greeted Samuel cordially and expected Samuel to give him a blessing. Saul was playing the hypocrite and acting as though he had done nothing wrong. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 John 1:6). His second lie consisted in blaming Samuel and the soldiers and not himself. It was Samuel’s fault for arriving late and the army’s fault for deserting their king. His words, “I saw” indicate that Saul was walking by sight and not by faith. He lied a third time when he said that he had to force himself to offer the sacrifice. Could he not have “forced himself” to pray or to call together some of the officers to beseech the Lord for His help? The will is the servant of the mind and heart, but Saul’s thinking and desiring were totally out of the will of God.

People who are good at making excuses are rarely good at anything else, and those who are quick to blame others shouldn’t complain if others blame them. When God confronted our first parents with their sin, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent, but neither Adam nor Eve said humbly, “I have sinned.” Throughout his career, King Saul was adept at minimizing his own sins and emphasizing the faults of others, but this isn’t the way a man of God leads God’s people.

Folly (vv. 13–14). It was foolish of Saul to think that he could disobey God and get away with it, and that his disobedience could bring God’s blessing on himself and his army. “Let us do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8) is the logic of hell, not the law of heaven. He was foolish to conclude that the sacrifice of a king at the wrong time was as good as the sacrifice of a priest at the right time. He was foolish to walk by sight and not by faith in God’s promise, “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Saul had the same kind of superstitious faith that Eli’s sons had when they carried the ark on the battlefield. He knew nothing of “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26).

Saul’s pride, impatience, disobedience, and deception were all seen and judged by the Lord, and Samuel announced the sentence: the crown would eventually be taken from Saul and given to another, in this case, David. Saul would continue as king, but he would not establish a lasting dynasty, and none of his sons would succeed him and rule over Israel. But even if Saul had not sinned, how could his dynasty continue “forever” (1 Sam. 13:13) when Saul was from the wrong tribe and God had already chosen David to be king of Israel? One answer is that Saul’s eldest son, Jonathan, could have served with David, which in fact is what David and Jonathan had planned (20:31, 42; 23:16–18). Of course, the Davidic dynasty would have established the Messianic line, but someone from Saul’s family would have served in court with the Davidic king.

Saul’s sin at Gilgal cost him the dynasty, and his sin involving the Amalekites cost him the kingdom. He eventually lost his crown and his life (see 15:16–34, especially 23, 27–29; 16:1). God wanted a king with a heart that was right toward God, a man with a shepherd’s heart, and He found that kind of heart in David (13:14; Ps. 78:72; 89:20; Acts 13:22). “This man [Saul] in his governing of Israel was a warrior and nothing more,” said G. Campbell Morgan; “he was never a shepherd.” But David had a shepherd’s heart, because the Lord was his Shepherd (Ps. 23:1). David was under authority, so he had the right to exercise authority.

Saul had failed miserably, but in chapter 14 we will read about Jonathan’s great success as a commander. This passage describes the sad condition of the army of Israel, which reveals how poor Saul’s leadership was and how remarkable Jonathan’s victory was. Saul walked by sight and had little faith, but Jonathan walked by faith and did exploits for the Lord.

A dwindling army (vv. 15–16). Saul had mustered over 300,000 men to rescue the people of Jabesh Gilead and then had cut it down to 3,000, but now his forces numbered only 600. The Philistine army was “as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude” (v. 5), a simile also used for the army Gideon faced (Judg. 7:12)—and Saul’s army was twice as large as Gideon’s! The difference wasn’t so much the size of the army as the strength of the leader’s faith. Gideon trusted God for victory and God honored him; Saul disobeyed God and God punished him. Saul had mustered that huge army by means of fear (1 Sam. 11:7), so when his men began to fear the enemy instead of the king, they began to desert the camp and go to places of safety. Jonathan knew that the Lord didn’t need great numbers to accomplish His purposes (14:6), but He did honor great faith.

A threatened army (vv. 17–18, 23). The Philistines repeatedly sent out “raiding parties” to protect the roads and passes that the Jews might use if they attacked, and at the same time the Philistines kept any residents from helping the Jewish army. There were three such groups: one went north toward Ophrah, a second west to Beth-horon, and the third east toward Zeboim. A fourth detachment went south toward Gibeah to prevent the Jewish army from moving up to Geba (v. 23). With all these Philistine soldiers moving about in the area, what hope was there for the Jews? No matter which way Israel turned, they would meet the enemy! And yet the Lord was going to use Jonathan and his armor-bearer to win a great victory, for with God, nothing is impossible.

A deprived army (vv. 19–22). It was bad enough that Saul lacked men, but it was even worse that his men were not properly equipped. When the Philistines moved in and subjected the land of Israel to their rule, they deported all the ironworkers so that the Jews couldn’t make weapons or even repair their farm implements. They even had to pay exorbitant prices to have their implements sharpened. The Benjamites were skilled at using slings (Judg. 20:15–16), but slings were not practical in close combat, and what about the vast number of Philistine chariots? The Jewish army was small in number and had small supplies of weapons, but they had a great God, if only they would trust Him. All of this sets the stage for Jonathan’s thrilling victory described in chapter 14, and that is contrasted with his father’s sad defeat in chapter 15.

In the way it functions or doesn’t function, the church of Jesus Christ today may sometimes resemble Saul’s army, but if we do, it’s our own fault. Through His great work on the cross, our Lord has defeated every enemy, and His power is available to His people. We have the armor and the weapons we need (Eph. 6:10ff.), and His Word tells us all we need to know about the strategy of the enemy and the resources we have in Christ. All He asks is that we trust Him and obey His orders, and He will help us win the battle.

“Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might” (Eph. 6:10) for “the battle is the Lord’s” (1 Sam. 17:47).