The Disciplined Order of Christ

In the last essay we studied 1 Samuel chapter 20, which presented the developing relationship between Jonathan and David. In this essay we study chapters 21 and 22. We saw the beginning of David’s days as a fugitive in chapter 20, but the key matter in that chapter was David’s relationship with Jonathan. Now at the beginning of chapter 21 the author’s emphasis shifts to Saul’s pursuit of David the fugitive. Indeed hunting down David became an obsession with Saul. And David had to be both creative and resourceful to survive. David’s first stop after leaving Jonathan was Nob, which was a priest’s city (22:19), where the tabernacle apparently had been set up for worship there.

Nob was located close to Jerusalem, just to the northeast of it. The priest, perhaps the high priest, was named Ahimelech. When he saw David coming, he trembled because of David’s surprise appearance at the tabernacle. Ahimelech knew David was the son-in-law of the king. Not only did he have no advance warning that David was coming, one didn’t expect the son-in-law of the king to appear anywhere unattended (21:1).

We learn from verse two that David did have a few men with him, though they did not come to the tabernacle. Then David lied to Ahimelech. He told the priest that he was there on a secret mission of the king. And he demanded five loaves of bread (vv. 2-3). The priest had no bread except the 12 loaves of holy bread, also known as the “bread of the presence,” that the priests weekly set before the Lord in the tabernacle (Lev. 24:5-9).

Technically no one was to eat that bread except the priests. But Ahimelech wanted to please the king’s son-in-law if he could, so he made an exception in David’s case. He gave David the five loaves he requested on the condition that none of David’s men had made themselves ceremonially unclean by having sex (v. 4; Lev. 15:18). David assured him that they had not (vv. 5-6).

Verse seven is parenthetical. Its importance will be seen in the next chapter (Ch. 22), where Doeg plays an important role, as we shall see. Next, in verses 8-9, the author tells us that David also needed a sword. Notice the additional lie by David. Once we begin lying it doesn’t seem to matter how many more we tell. The only weapon Ahimelech had at the tabernacle was the sword of Goliath. Its presence there is not explained, but obviously, it ended up there, perhaps for safekeeping.

In verses 10-15 we see how desperate David felt as he fled. He decided to take refuge among the hated Philistines. From Nob David went to the Philistine city of Gath, apparently hoping to be unrecognized so that he and his men could attach themselves to king Achish of that city. Gath is the nearest Philistine city, located southwest of Jerusalem. But the servants of king Achish immediately recognized David, and he had to pretend he was crazy to escape the situation.

At the beginning of chapter 22, we see that David’s next stop was a place called Adullam, named after a cave located there. It was in southern Judah about halfway between Gath and Bethlehem. Then a remarkable thing happened. People began to gather at Adullam under David’s leadership. His family came, which could be expected. But others came as well. All of the malcontents in Israel, those in distress, those in debt, and those unhappy with Saul’s government, about 400 in all, came to Adullam seeking leadership from David (vv. 1-2). Later, the number rose to 600 (23:13).

From there David went to Moab, whose king was friendly. He put his parents in the care of Moab’s king, and then took up residence in a place described as “the stronghold,” which also may have been in Moab (vv. 3-4). No one knows its location. But a prophet named Gad came to David, probably from Samuel’s school, and advised him to return to Judah, which he did. He went to the forest of Hereth, which evidently was somewhere in Judah; but its location also is unknown today (vv. 3-5).

Verses 6-10 begin the sad account of Saul’s brutal murder of the priests of Nob. Saul was holding court under the tamarisk tree at Gibeah and complaining about the fact that no one told him what he needed to know about David’s relationship with Jonathan as well as David’s movements since he fled from Saul (vv. 6-8). He obviously was in a bad mood.

One man in the court saw this as an opportunity for self-advancement. It was Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob when David got the sacred bread and Goliath’s sword from Ahimelech. So he stepped forward and told the story (vv. 9-10).

Verses 11-19 tell an ugly story. They demonstrate the level of paranoia and cruelty to which Saul had sunk. After calling all of the priests of Nob before him, Saul accused them of conspiring against him, which essentially was a charge of treason, because they had helped David (vv. 11-13). Ahimelech defended himself with the truth, but Saul wasn’t interested in the truth (vv. 14-15). He ordered all of the priests killed on the spot. But the order was so outrageous Saul’s guards refused to do it (vv. 16-17). So Saul turned to the ambitious Doeg the Edomite and ordered him to kill them, which Doeg was happy to do. Doeg personally killed 85 priests, in effect wiping out the priests of Nob (v. 18). But Saul wasn’t content with killing the priests. In a bloodthirsty decision he ordered the whole population of Nob destroyed, as if they were under the ban (v. 19).

In verses 20-23 we learn that one priest, Abiathar, somehow escaped the massacre. And he informed David of it. Upon hearing the story, David realized that he was somewhat responsible in the matter. And as long as David was alive he made good his promise to protect Abiathar.

Turning to application I want to focus on the deceit of David in chapter 21. David lied to Ahimelech the priest when he needed help. I’m sure David thought he was justified in doing so under the circumstances. He needed the bread and the sword, and a little lie seemed harmless. Thus, first, David had the pressure of circumstances. Had David not yielded to that temptation, the needs of himself and his men probably would have been met in some other way. But he saw an easy opportunity that required only a little lie. Have you ever been tempted to lie because of the pressure of circumstances?

Second, David also felt the promise of advantage. Lies invariably are like that. The lie easily enabled David to get what he needed. His lie gave him the advantage of getting what he wanted when he wanted it. That’s the promise of advantage. When we lie, it usually is because we believe the lie will easily bring us what we need or desire when we want or desire it.

And third, David failed to ponder the consequences. David simply assumed there would be no serious negative consequences. But in the end an entire city was slaughtered because of David’s lie. When most people lie, they believe it will have no serious consequences. They even have the gall to believe their lie will not be discovered. But lies come to light in many unexpected ways. In David’s case, in retrospect, he was suspicious of Doeg the Edomite. But at the time David was deceiving Ahimelech, he wasn’t thinking about what might happen in the future. Indeed he wasn’t interested in the future. He was only interested in his short-range gains.

How many parents have assumed there would be no serious consequences when they lied in front of their children? How many young people have assumed there would be no serious consequences when they lied to their parents about where they were going, or what they were doing? How many men and women have assumed there would be no serious consequences when they lied about their relationships, their work, their money, their taxes, etc. Frequently, as in David’s case, little lies result in great pain. Sometimes liars suffer the pain themselves. And sometimes it is others who suffer. Nearly always the suffering could have been avoided if we would not have bowed to the pressure of circumstances and the promise of advantage, and if we had not failed to ponder the consequences.

In the last essay we studied 1 Samuel 18-19, which passage revealed Saul’s jealousy and fear of David. In this essay we study chapter 20, which develops for us the relationship between Jonathan and David. After leaving the protection of Samuel, David went to his friend Jonathan to try to discover why Saul was so angry with him. It seemed obvious to David that Saul wanted to kill him, but he didn’t fully understand why (v. 1).

Jonathan tried to pacify David, because he never had heard his father say that he wanted to kill David. And it is true that to this point, Saul had attacked David only when under the spell of the evil spirit (v. 2). But David was unconvinced (v. 3). So Jonathan agreed to “test the waters” so to speak (v. 4).

They worked out a plan. David would miss Saul’s new moon celebration, which was to take place over the next three days (v. 12). David would be expected to attend. Jonathan agreed to make an excuse for David, if Saul missed him; namely, that David asked to be excused so that he could go to Bethlehem to make a family sacrifice (vv. 5-6). The idea was that Saul would make clear his feelings about David when he heard that excuse (v. 7).

David was so concerned about the situation that he reminded Jonathan of the friendship covenant Jonathan had made with David, which was a covenant in the name of the Lord. And he charged Jonathan to kill David himself rather than let his father do it (v. 8). Jonathan ‘s reply indicated that he still believed David was not in danger; and he assured David that he would tell him if Saul viewed David unfavorably (v. 9).

In response David asked who would bring him the news. It seems he was thinking that Jonathan might not be able to do it himself (v. 10). So Jonathan invited David out into a field to talk further, perhaps to assure that they would not be overheard (v. 11). Once in the field Jonathan first of all vowed to David in the name of the Lord that he would inform David of Saul’s feelings towards him. That is in verses 12 and 13. The original text of verses 14 and 15 is uncertain, but the various translations manage to get the idea intended by Jonathan. Jonathan evidently had some understanding that the Lord had chosen David as the new king. And of course that meant that Jonathan would not succeed his father on the throne.

In those ancient times it was not uncommon for a king of a new line to kill all from the old line who had any claim to the throne. So Jonathan, in effect, was “cutting a deal” with David respecting the future. He was seeking safety for himself and his family. David agreed, and they struck a covenant in that regard (v. 16). David later fulfilled that pledge in respect to Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth. The story is in 2 Sam. 9:1-13 (cf. 2 Sam. 21:1-7). Jonathan, just to seal the deal, also asked David to renew their personal friendship covenant (v. 17).

That done, Jonathan and David made their plans for communication of the news about Saul’s reaction to David’s absence from the feast. They agreed on a place where David would hide. It was the same place where David had hid earlier, as recorded ion chapter 19. It was near a large stone (v. 19). Then Jonathan laid out how he would communicate the news with the shooting of arrows, apparently in case it would be impossible for them to speak in person. It was a very simple sign. He would tell the boy who was to retrieve the arrows one thing if David was safe, and another thing if he was in danger (vv. 20-22). Furthermore, this arrangement was to remain a secret between them forever (v. 23).

All right, next we see David hiding himself in the field instead of attending Saul’s banquet (v. 24). Meanwhile at the banquet Abner was in his place and Jonathan in his; but David was absent, a fact that Saul noticed, though he said nothing about it. Saul simply assumed that David had not come because he was ceremonially unclean. New Moon festivals required ceremonial cleanliness. Something as common as sex could make a person unclean until evening (Lev. 15:16-18), so Saul didn’t think too much of David’s absence the first day (vv. 25-26).

But when David didn’t show up the second day, Saul was upset and asked Jonathan why David wasn’t there (v. 27). Jonathan gave Saul the pre-arranged excuse about the family sacrifice in Bethlehem (vv 28-29). Instead of accepting that excuse, and saying “Good,” as Jonathan expected, Saul became extremely angry and vented his anger against Jonathan: “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die” (vv. 30-31).

The reference to Jonathan’s mother didn’t have anything to do with Jonathan’s mother as such. That was an expression in Hebrew that meant the person addressed was such a person. Thus the insult was aimed at Jonathan not his mother. We also see clearly here that Saul understood that David was a rival to Jonathan for the throne, and that Jonathan would never be king unless David were killed. So Saul demanded that Jonathan deliver David to Saul so that Saul could kill him.

Jonathan was shocked. And he protested: “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” And Saul in his rage responded by throwing his spear at Jonathan, convincing Jonathan once and for all that his father was determined to kill his friend, David (vv. 32-33). That made Jonathan angry; and he ate nothing that day, because he felt disgraced by his father and grieved for David (v. 34).

The next morning Jonathan reported to David what happened by the sign agreed upon (vv. 35-38). Then Jonathan dismissed the boy whom he had brought with him to chase the arrows so that he could speak with David personally (v. 39). Apparently the arrows were necessary in case personal discussion turned out to be impossible. But once the boy left (v. 40), it was possible to talk, and they did.

Unfortunately very little of their conversation is recorded. Indeed only Jonathan’s parting remark is shared. It is essentially a reaffirmation of their covenant relationship. And then they parted (vv. 41-42).

Turning now to application, I want to focus on verses 24-34, which is the account of Saul’s explosion of anger at his New Moon feast. In the last lesson we looked at Saul’s jealousy. In this one I want us to look at another one of his negative emotions, his anger. But once again we have a contrast between Saul and his son Jonathan, who also became angry. Therefore we also want to take Jonathan’s anger into account. The point is that not all anger is sinful. We will call the one unrighteous anger, and the other righteous anger. And we will begin with the unrighteous anger.

First, unrighteous anger can be triggered without adequate reason. Notice that Jonathan did nothing but give Saul a perfectly plausible reason for David’s absence from the feast. But Saul exploded in anger against his son. Anger can be kindled without adequate reason.

Second, unrighteous anger, like the envy we studied last week, springs from selfishness. Saul’s anger was just as irrational as his jealousy. He was so self-involved he had no perspective, no objectivity. Thus his anger arose from selfishness.

And third, unrighteous anger, when left unchecked, becomes malice and wrath. Notice that nothing is said on this occasion about the evil spirit’s coming on Saul. Rather Saul simply indulged his anger, which flared out in malice and wrath.

See other Scriptures in regard to unrighteous anger. According to the Psalmist, “Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath” (Ps. 37:8). According to Jesus, “if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council” (Matt. 5:22). According to Paul, “Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger” (Eph. 4:31). And according to James, “your anger does not produce God’s righteousness” (James 1:20).

Now then, in respect to righteous anger, as expressed by Jonathan. Jonathan became angry in response to Saul’s unrighteous wrath. But Jonathan’s anger was totally different from Saul’s. Jonathan was angry because of what his father had done. Saul not only had disgraced Jonathan in public, he also had expressed his sincere desire to kill David. But notice what Jonathan did in response. He fasted. The text doesn’t tell us if the fasting was combined with prayer, but it is quite likely.

The first point I want to make in regard to righteous anger is that it is kept under control. Notice that Jonathan didn’t strike out against his father or anyone.

A second point arises out of the first. Unlike unrighteous anger, righteous anger is directed against the wrong done instead of against the wrong doer.

Jesus himself, when the Pharisees were seeking to accuse him on a Sabbath, “looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart” (Mk. 3:5). But look at what he did. He did nothing to the Pharisees. Instead he healed a man with a withered hand.

Third, righteous anger springs from love, not hate. Jonathan was angry; but like Jesus, Jonathan’s anger expressed itself in grief rather than wrath. “He was grieved for David,” we are told.

And fourth, righteous anger does not continue too long. Jonathan showed no evidence of his anger the next morning. As Paul teaches us in Eph 4:26: “Be angry,” meaning in the righteous sense, “but without sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger.”

In the last essay we studied the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. In this essay we study 1 Samuel 18-19, which reveal Saul’s jealousy and fear of David. The very day that David killed Goliath and was brought to Saul with the head of Goliath in his hand, the heart of Jonathan, Saul’s son, was bonded to that of David (18:1). That day also was the end of David’s moving back and forth between Saul’s court and his father’s house (18:2). From that day on David was to remain with Saul.

Jonathan immediately struck up a friendship with David, which led to a friendship covenant between the two (vv. 3-4). Meanwhile everything Saul assigned David to do he did successfully, which led to great popularity for David (v. 5). Indeed David was so successful in the war against the Philistines that when the army returned from battle, and the celebrations began, the women of Israel made a hero of David in song: “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (vv. 6-7).

Saul was angry. He was the king, but David was the hero. The only thing left for David to attain was the throne itself, and the thought of that enraged Saul (vv. 8-9). The next day while David played the lyre for Saul, Saul had one of his spells; and he tried to kill David with his spear, which according to ancient custom he held as a scepter. David had to elude the spear twice (vv. 10-11).

At this point Saul was aware not only of his fear of David, but of the reason. He realized that it was due to the fact that the Spirit of the Lord had departed from him, and was with David (v. 12). So Saul, apparently to avoid such a public spectacle from happening again, sent David from his presence by making him the captain of a thousand men (v. 13). David was enormously successful as a military leader (vv. 14-16).

In the rest of the chapter (vv. 17-30) we see that Saul gave permission to David to marry his eldest daughter, Merab. This was to fulfill his promise made at the time of the Goliath incident to give his daughter to the one who killed Goliath. All David had to do in return was be valiant in the wars against the Philistines. Saul said that, because he was hoping that David would be killed in battle (v. 17). David replied humbly (v. 18); but Saul, for reasons that are not revealed, gave his daughter to someone else (v. 19).

But Saul had another daughter, Michal, who wanted David as her husband (v. 20). So Saul began negotiations with David (vv. 21-24). David couldn’t afford to pay an appropriate dowry for the king’s daughter, so Saul suggested a different kind of dowry. He asked for a hundred Philistine foreskins. Of course, once again, his hope was that the Philistines would kill David (v. 25). As always, David had no difficulty with the Philistines; and within the time period designated, David delivered 100 foreskins to Saul (vv. 26-27; compare 2 Sam. 3:14).

At this point Saul’s hostility towards David became life-long enmity (v. 29). Saul was no longer moved just by mental illness. He was now David’s enemy during his sanest moments. In 19:1-7 we have an account of a temporary reconciliation between Saul and David. Saul began to talk openly to Jonathan and the court about killing David, but Jonathan intervened. First he told David about it (v. 1-2). Then he talked with his father and successfully convinced him to reconcile with David; and David returned to court (vv. 3-7). But the peace didn’t last long.

David won another major victory over the Philistines (v. 8). Then Saul’s evil spirit returned, and he once again attempted to kill David with his spear. So David had to flee (vv. 9-10). At first he went to his home; but Saul sent people to watch David so that he could have him killed in the morning. But Michal heard about it, and helped David to escape by letting him down from a window and making a dummy in his bed. This bought David the time he needed to get away (vv. 11-16). Saul was angry with Michal, but she claimed that David threatened to kill her if she didn’t help him (v. 17).

In the rest of the chapter we see that David fled to Samuel (v. 18). And the Lord protected him there long enough for him to escape once again. Three times Saul sent messengers to take David; and all three times they fell into a prophetic frenzy against their will and did not succeed (vv. 19-21). Then Saul went himself; and he too fell into a prophetic frenzy and was humiliated by lying naked on the ground for a day and a night (vv. 22-24). Thus Saul failed to apprehend David when he was with Samuel.

Turning to application, there are many places in these two chapters on which we could focus; but I want us to look at chapter 18, verses 6-16. In this passage we see Saul’s jealousy flaring out. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, but we don’t talk about it very much. So let’s take a look at Saul’s jealousy.

However first, I want us to think about the contrast between Saul and his son Jonathan. If there was a man in Israel who had reason to envy David, it was Jonathan. Jonathan was a gallant soldier, and a genuine hero in Israel; but David had become a greater hero. Jonathan was the heir to Saul’s throne. So if David were to become king, it would be Jonathan whom he would supplant. Yet there is not one shred of evidence that Jonathan ever felt even a twinge of jealousy. Indeed he loved David, and was completely loyal to him.

Now contrast that to Saul. Saul at first obeyed his better impulses. He brought David to his court and used him as a leader in his army. But the black cloud of jealousy quickly gathered. When the people began to praise David more than himself, Saul could not bear it. And he began to plot David’s murder.

Envy obviously is a major evil. And as we look at Saul’s jealousy, we learn some things about how envy functions. First, envy t takes root in the heart. In Saul’s case his heart had become evil. But any of us can become vulnerable. It begins with alienation from God. Saul had disobeyed the Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord left him. Then he morbidly began to concentrate on himself, thinking that no one should get more adulation than the king. And that led to his opening himself up to an evil spirit (or to mental illness). Envy takes place in the heart.

Second, envy flourishes in the shade of another’s glory. The thing that seemed to put Saul over the edge was the singing by women of Israel that Saul had killed his thousands, but David his ten thousands. Envy always is a negative response to the accomplishments of others. There always seems to be someone who does better than us. And we can respond to that as Jonathan did, or as Saul did.

Third, sprouting envy produces ugly fruit. It produces the fruit of irrationality. That is, like Saul, it raises ugly emotions even when the object of jealously does nothing to cause it. It produces the fruit of ingratitude. By that I mean that a jealous person has no gratitude for the gifts and accomplishments that he or she has in hand. And envy produces the fruit of failure to love. Indeed it is quite the opposite of love. Envy gives all of its energy to the self, as Saul demonstrated. Thus envy produces is ugly fruit.

And fourth, envy produces deadly fruit. It produces hatred of the person who is the object of jealousy. And it produces an insidious inner poison in the envious one’s own heart. I pray that all of us are free, and remain free, of this evil passion.

In the last essay we studied 1 Samuel 16, in which we saw how the Lord handled Saul’s rejection as king. He did not turn Saul out immediately. Rather he chose to permit things to play out naturally, which seems to be his preferred way of dealing with human situations. Saul reigned until his death. But in the meantime, the Lord commanded Samuel to go to Bethlehem and anoint one of Jesse’s sons as the new king. And so Samuel anointed David as the next king of Israel. But more important than the anointing with oil was the anointing of the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward.”

All right, today we are studying 1 Samuel 17, which contains the story of David and Goliath. The account begins by telling us that the Philistines had gathered for battle against Israel (v. 1). They were camped on the slope of one mountain; and Israel was camped on the slope of another, opposite mountain, with the Elah valley in between (vv. 3, 19).

And twice every day a champion of the Philistines named Goliath would step forth and issue a challenge to Israel (vv. 4, 16). Now Goliath was an imposing figure. He was nine foot six, a huge man—literally a giant (v. 4)! And he had armor and weapons as large as he was.

So twice per day Goliath would call out to Israel, in effect, “Haven’t you got a man over there?” “Choose a man from among yourselves to come and fight me. If he can win, we Philistines will become servants of Israel. But if I win, you will have to be our servants” (vv. 8-10). This struck fear into Israel, including king Saul (v.11).

David’s three oldest brothers were part of Saul’s army (v. 13), but David who was the youngest had stayed home to tend the family’s sheep. At that time David apparently was going back and forth between Saul’s court and his home, according to Saul’s mental condition (v. 15).

One day, David’s father Jesse sent David to his brothers to take them some food and to see how they were doing (vv. 17-18). While David was visiting with his brothers, Goliath came out to do his twice-daily taunt; and David heard him (vv. 22-23). David was shocked. “Who is this guy?” he asked those near to him: “who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God” (v.26)?

What David had said was reported to king Saul; and Saul called David in to talk (v. 31). David was rather cocky. He told Saul, “Don’t have a heart attack over Goliath. I can take care of him.” Literally he said “Let no one’s heart fail because of him.” And he offered to fight the giant (v. 32).

Of course Saul protested. “You can’t fight Goliath. You are just a boy; and he has been a warrior all of his life” (v. 33). But David had an answer. “I have killed lions and bears defending my father’s sheep; and this giant is no more of a threat than those. Moreover he has defied the armies of the living God. The Lord, who saved me from the paw of the lion and the bear, will save me from the Philistine” (vv. 34-37)!

Whoa! Saul was deeply impressed with David’s faith, confidence and zeal. And so he said, “Go, and may the Lord be with you” (v. 37). Saul offered his sword and armor to David; but it was too awkward for David who was not used to wearing armor, so he removed it (vv. 38-39). Instead he selected five smooth stones for his sling, took up his staff, and approached Goliath (v. 40).

Goliath was insulted. “Am I a dog,” he said. “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?”—apparently referring to David’s staff (vv. 42-43) “Come on,” he said. “I’ll feed your flesh to the birds and the wild animals” (v. 44).

But David was defiant. “Yes, you have a sword, a spear and a javelin; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts. . . . This very day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. . . . so that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel” (vv. 45-46).

Wow! Next David took one of the stones he had selected, placed it in his sling and flung it at Goliath. It hit him right on the forehead and sunk into his skull bringing him down (vv. 48-49). Some years ago, when a colleague and I took a group of students to Israel, on a visit to the national museum we saw an exhibition of sling stones from those ancient times. We were amazed to see the size of them. They were as large as baseballs. No wonder it brought Goliath down.

Once Goliath was down, David ran to him, took Goliath’s sword, and cut off his head, as he had said he would. That surprising turn of events struck fear into the Philistines; and they fled the field with the Israelites in hot pursuit (vv. 51-54). And it became a day of great victory for Israel.

All right, that is the story. And an exciting story it is. Now then, I want to draw some application from it. To begin, I want to note three characteristics of David. First, David had an attitude. Frequently in our culture, when we say someone has an attitude, we mean it as a negative thing. That is, we are thinking of a bad attitude. But David had a good attitude.

Israel’s king and army had been cowering in fear before Goliath for weeks (v. 16). But when David came on the scene, his first thought was, “Who does this guy think he is to defy the army of the living God!” David had an attitude!

The second characteristic is an obvious one. David had courage. He not only volunteered to fight Goliath, he really believed he could take him. And it was not a false courage. David had fought and killed lions and bears while defending his father’s sheep; and he didn’t see Goliath as any more dangerous than they (vv. 32-38).

The third characteristic also is rather obvious, but quite important. David was a man of faith. That was evident in David’s attitude already discussed. He couldn’t believe that an uncircumcised Philistine could defy the army of the living God—not because the army was so formidable, but because they were the army of the living God (v. 36)! But it shows at other points as well.

For example, when David approached Goliath, he did so boldly, not because he considered himself a great warrior, but because he approached “in the name of the Lord of hosts” (v. 45). Thus we see the three characteristics of David. He was a man with a positive, confident attitude. He was a man of courage. And he was a man of faith.

Now then, with those three characteristics as a background, I want to point out three “M’s” in relation to the narrative. The first was David’s mission. That was important. David may not have had a written mission statement; but he had a clear mission. War tends to be like that. David’s mission was to kill Goliath. And he concentrated his attention on that task. Likewise it is crucial for us to identify our mission in the world. We need to have a clear idea of what it is that the Lord Jesus is calling us to do where we are. Otherwise we will not be the fruitful disciples that we ought to be.

David’s second “M” was his method. Not only did David have a clear mission—to kill Goliath—he had a suitable method for doing so. It is hard to overestimate the importance of this one. Notice that David did not try suddenly to become a mighty warrior, although those around him tried to lead him in that direction. David wasn’t trained as a warrior. There was no way he could defeat Goliath using weapons he wasn’t trained to use.

Instead David stayed within himself. He knew who and what he was. He was a shepherd skilled in the use of a sling and staff, not a warrior skilled in swordsmanship. Thus he chose the sling and staff as his weapons, because they were the weapons he knew how to use. They were the weapons with which he had killed lions and bears. So David had an appropriate method with which to fulfill his mission. Once again we need an appropriate method as well. It is extremely important for us to discover the ways in which the Lord has gifted us, so that we can fulfill our mission as Christians.

David had a third “M.” I could of placed this one first instead of last. David not only had a clear mission and an appropriate method for carrying out that mission, he also had a proper motive. In the end, this is the big one. None of what we do will be of use to God without proper motivation. And David had that proper motive. He wanted to honor God.

There is a problem associated with all of this, however. Any of us, when we are honest with ourselves, acknowledge that our motives tend to be mixed. We want to do everything to the glory of God, but selfish interests get in the way. David’s motives probably were not 100% pure either. But David’s primary motivation certainly was to honor God.

All right, we have seen three characteristics of David. He had an attitude that didn’t believe Goliath should be defying the army of God, no matter how big he was. David had the courage to take on a giant, just as he had taken on lions and bears. And he had faith in an all-powerful God. And we have seen three “M’s” in David’s conquest of Goliath. He had a clear mission; namely to kill Goliath. He had an appropriate method, one that was suited to who and what he was. And he had the proper motive. He wanted to honor and serve the Lord. May we be inspired to be as David was, and do as David did.

Following a week in California, part of which was spent speaking at the Western Region fall retreat, I am now able to get back to 1 Samuel. In the last essay we studied 1 Samuel 15, in which we saw Samuel’s final confrontation with Saul. In this essay we study chapter 16.

After the rejection of Saul as king, the Lord handled the matter in an interesting fashion. He did not turn Saul out immediately. Certainly he could have done that. He could have struck him dead. He could have had Samuel orchestrate a revolution. Perhaps the Lord had other options. But he chose to permit things to play out naturally, which seems to be his preferred way of dealing with human situations. Saul reigned until his death. In the meantime, the Lord commanded Samuel to go to Bethlehem and anoint one of Jesse’s sons as the new king.

Now Jesse was from a prominent family. He was a grandson of Boaz and Ruth, a fact that that was revealed at the end of the book of Ruth (Ruth 4:17, 22).

In verses 1-5 notice that Samuel continued to mourn over Saul. Some of that may have been due to personal affection Samuel had for the man. But it is likely that the main reason was Samuel’s concern for the welfare of Israel. But the Lord commanded him to set aside his grief and go to Bethlehem to anoint a new king.

Notice also that Samuel expressed some fear of Saul. That was justified, because as the king, Saul had the power of life and death in his hands. We see no protest from the Lord in respect to Samuel’s fear. Rather, he provided Samuel with a way to overcome the problem. He instructed Samuel to take a heifer to Bethlehem for use as a public sacrifice. He was to invite Jesse to the sacrifice, which would enable them to have contact without arousing any suspicion.

Some have raised the issue of deception here. Was the Lord being deceptive? No. It was not unusual for Samuel go to various cities and make sacrifices, just as it was not unusual for him to go to those places as Israel’s judge. Indeed we see the elders of Bethlehem asking Samuel what the purpose of his visit was (v. 4). Was he coming in peace, or was he coming to bring judgment on someone? And of course the answer was that he was coming in peace to offer a sacrifice. Samuel offered sacrifices in various places, because the tabernacle no longer was an exclusive place of sacrifice following the removal of the Ark of the Covenant from, it.

Therefore Samuel invited the elders, and also Jesse and Jesse’s sons, to sanctify themselves and take part in the sacrifice. I assume that he invited others as well, so that his invitation to Jesse would not stand out, though the others are not mentioned.

Moving to verses 6-13, it is unclear from the text whether Samuel’s meeting with Jesse and his sons was public or private. However it seems reasonable to believe that it was private, perhaps taking place in Jesse’s home. Samuel was impressed with the eldest son, Eliab (v. 6), who evidently was tall and good looking; but he was not the Lord’s choice. The Lord looks on the heart, Samuel was told (v. 7). Nor was Abinadab, Shammah or any of the other of Jesse’s seven sons the chosen one (vv. 8-10).

So Samuel asked Jesse if he had any other sons. And Jesse admitted that he had one more, the youngest, who was tending the family’s sheep. Samuel directed Jesse to have him brought in. Indeed they would not sit down, meaning not sit down to eat, until the boy was brought (v. 11). Of course that boy was David. When he arrived he proved to be ruddy of complexion, with beautiful eyes and handsome features. He also obviously had the kind of heart the Lord was looking for. The Lord informed Samuel that David was the one (v. 12).

And so Samuel anointed David as the next king of Israel. But more important, “the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward” (v.13). Nothing is recorded regarding what Samuel said to David that day. It is possible that he told him nothing, but that is unlikely. Samuel probably told David what the anointing and the presence of the Spirit meant. But he also probably told him to bide his time, to await the timing of the lord for his ascension to the throne. After all, the one sitting on the throne was anointed of the Lord; and that had to be respected.

In the remainder of the chapter we see how the now-anointed David gets called to be a part of Saul’s court. This was an interesting and important development. For one thing, it provided David with a huge learning experience. Being at Saul’s court taught him how things at court operated. And all of that was good preparation for his own eventual reign.

Verse 14 offers an exceedingly important piece of information. Not only did the Spirit of the Lord come upon David, but the Spirit of the Lord also departed from Saul. And in addition to that, the Lord sent an evil spirit on Saul.

Many people have a hard time understanding this. It doesn’t seem consistent with the character of God as love. But the problem has to do with the Hebrew’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty, rather than with their doctrine of God’s character. Under the Old Covenant the Hebrews didn’t distinguish between God’s intentional and permissive will. So if they had no specific understanding of what was happening; or if human choice was involved, they still interpreted it as from the Lord.

In this case, one could interpret what the author said about Saul’s problem literally. That is, that the Lord literally sent an evil spirit on Saul. On the other hand, it seems legitimate also to interpret Saul’s problem as a mental illness that came and went, which Saul’s attendants at court interpreted to be an evil spirit sent from the Lord (v. 15).

At any rate, when Saul’s courtiers noticed the mental problems of the king, they advised that he get someone to play the lyre during his spells so that the music would soothe him and make him feel better. Ironically, though I believe by God’s intention, someone recommended David. David came for an interview, and Saul liked him. So David became Saul’s armor-bearer, and thus a member of Saul’s court (vv. 15-22).

Of course Saul had no idea that David had been anointed as king. And as I suggested earlier, that position of armor-bearer became a school for David in respect to his future calling. It brought him into contact with men of high rank; it enabled him to observe the affairs of government; and it gave him a platform to develop his gifts and talents.

Turning now to application, I believe we must focus on the Lord’s selection of David as the new king. First, David was not chosen according to human judgment. In human terms the tallest, best-looking person gets prior consideration. Indeed physical attributes are seen as important, as was true in the case of Saul.

And in that culture the eldest normally was preferred. So when Samuel saw Jesse’s eldest son, Aliab, who was a big man, he immediately thought, this is the one (v. 6). But the Lord told Samuel that physical attributes and age are not the crucial elements (v. 7).

Therefore second, David was chosen according to the judgment of God. The history of Israel clearly shows that God isn’t interested in a person’s age. Although he used elderly persons like Abraham and Moses, he also turned to young men. Indeed it is interesting to see how often the Lord chose the youngest in a family. Joseph was the baby in his family. Moses had an older brother, Aaron. Gideon was the youngest in his father’s house. And now we see the youngest of Jesse’s sons chosen.

Moreover the Lord had a more important characteristic in mind than looks and size. He told Samuel in verse seven, “mortals . . . look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” And as you know, the Lord later pronounced David to be a man after his own heart. That was the key reason for God’s choice of David as king.

Third, the Lord slowly prepared David for his coming role as king. He was prepared, first of all, by his years as a shepherd. As a shepherd, David formed habits of vigilance. He proved his courage. And he also had time to learn his music and poetry.

Furthermore David was prepared by his anointing with the Spirit of God. It is not enough just to have the job. One needs the anointing of the Spirit for wisdom and empowerment. And this is just as true for us as it was for David.

Finally, fourth, David was prepared, as we saw earlier, by his time at Saul’s court.

It seems to me that we can see a model here for God’s calling on our lives. God calls us according to his judgment. He looks on the heart as he decides how to call and gift us for service. And he prepares us for every ministry by life experiences and by anointing us with his Holy Spirit.

In this essay we are studying 1 Samuel chapter 15, in which we will see Saul’s final confrontation with Samuel. Israel had quite a history with the Amalekites. The Amalekites were the first nation to attack Israel following her Exodus from Egypt (Ex. 17:8-16). In Deut. 25:17-19, we see that God, through Moses, declared that Amalek must be punished for her wickedness. The passage reads:

Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary, and cut off at your rear all who lagged behind you; and he did not fear God. Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies round about, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.

Now in Saul’s day, the Amalekites, those ancient enemies of Israel (who may have once again been threatening) were to be punished for what they had done. Samuel came to Saul with a word from the Lord that Saul was to attack Amalek and utterly destroy them. Every person and thing was to be destroyed according to the ban. The ban meant that everything taken in battle was dedicated to God and could not be used for any human purpose. In this particular case, the Lord was calling for war for his purposes, and there was to be a total ban.

In verses 4-9 we get a brief description of the war itself. No one knows where Telaim was located, though it had to be somewhere deep in the southern part of Israel. When Saul’s army approached the city of the Amalekites, the location of which also is unknown, he called out the Kenites from the city.

The Kenites, in contrast to the Amalekites, had been closely associated with Israel following the Exodus. Moses’ father-in-law came from that people group (cf. Num. 10:29 with Judg. 1:16). Thus Saul did not want to destroy them when he destroyed the Amalekites. Then Saul defeated the Amalekites decisively.

Unfortunately Saul did not do it as instructed. First, though Saul was to kill every last Amalekite, he spared the life of the Amalekite king, Agag (v. 8). Apparently others escaped, which is why the Amalekites are mentioned later in the Old Testament. But they killed all that they could get their hands on. God would not hold them responsible for those that escaped. However, Saul consciously made an exception with king Agag. But the Lord had ordered no exceptions.

Second, Saul spared “the best of the sheep and the cattle and of the fatlings.” The “fatlings” literally were second-born animals. They were generally considered superior to first-born animals, because the mothers were at their healthiest and greatest strength after their first pregnancy.

The reason for not killing all of the animals is evident. They were valuable. It is not so clear why Saul spared Agag. Perhaps his ego wanted to have a royal slave. At any rate, he and the people blatantly disobeyed the Lord.

The Lord quickly responded to the disobedience of Saul by giving a word to Samuel who went to Saul to deliver it (vv. 10-23). The Lord told Samuel that he regretted making Saul king, because Saul was disobedient. Samuel was deeply angered by the Lord’s word, not because God regretted having made Saul king, but because he knew the Lord’s will had been frustrated by Saul’s disobedience (v. 11; cf. v. 29).

Then Samuel prayed all night (v. 11). Some say he was praying for Saul. But I suspect he was praying about the encounter he was to have with Saul. The next day Samuel caught up with Saul at Gilgal (v. 12); and Saul’s first comment was that he had “carried out the command of the Lord” (v. 13). But Samuel quickly took the air out of that boast, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears” (v. 14)?

Saul didn’t bat an eye. He blamed the people; and then he claimed the animals had been saved for the purpose of making sacrifices to the Lord (v 15). Samuel would have none of that. He told Saul to be quiet. And he informed Saul of the word of the Lord, while accusing him of outrageous disobedience (vv. 16-19).

But Saul still was defiant. “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord,” he said (vv. 20-21). But again Samuel put a stop to all excuses by declaring, “to obey is better than sacrifice” (v. 22). And then he concluded by saying, “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king” (v. 23).

That powerful prophecy brought Saul up short; and in verses 24-25 he began to confess his sin. However, even though Saul confessed, his words betrayed his insincerity. He still was justifying himself somewhat by saying he was afraid of the people. That wouldn’t wash. He was the king. A word from him was all that was necessary to assure that the people followed the Lord’s command. Saul’s repentance was out of fear of losing the kingdom, not out of genuine consciousness of sin (v. 25).

Saul also asked Samuel to stay and lead in worship so that Saul would not be embarrassed. At first Samuel refused (v. 26). Then as Samuel turned to leave, Saul grabbed Samuel’s robe; and the hem tore off in Saul’s hand. Samuel told Saul that the torn robe symbolized the tearing of the kingdom away from Saul. But interestingly, Samuel then relented and led the people in worship, which kept Saul from losing face (vv. 28-31).

After the worship Samuel ordered the Amalekite king, Agag, brought before him. Acting as judge, jury and executioner, Samuel pronounced the death sentence on Agag, and then proceeded to hack him to pieces. The Lord had ordered all of the Amalekites killed; and Samuel carried out that command insofar as he was able (vv. 32-33). That was the last contact Samuel had with Saul prior to the day of Samuel’s death. But we are told that Samuel “grieved over Saul” (vv. 34-35).

Turning to application, it seems to me that the “big idea” here is Saul’s arrogant disobedience and its consequences. And it is seen most clearly in verses 22-23. First, obedience is of greatest value. Indeed it is of greater value than worship. As Samuel pointed out, “to obey is better than sacrifice” (v.20).

We human beings often don’t seem to grasp that truth. Many of us are just like Saul. We are faithful to public worship; but at the same time, we consciously sin day by day. We go to church, and try to use the fruit of our disobedience “to sacrifice unto the Lord.” But that isn’t acceptable to the Lord. Other people may pat us on the back and say it is acceptable. But it what the Lord thinks that matters.

Second, disobedience is idolatry (v.23). In other words disobedience is as wicked as obedience is excellent. And again Saul was typical of many people today. He consciously disobeyed God, but rationalized it. He told Samuel he had carried out the command of the Lord, even though he had not done so. The cattle were spared for purposes of worship. They would make excellent sacrifices, said Saul. The fact that they were not supposed to be spared didn’t seem to matter to him. He had more or less done what the Lord commanded; and that was good enough in his opinion.

Today a multitude of persons name the name of Christ and do the Lord’s will more or less. More or less is good enough in their view, just as it was in Saul’s. Unfortunately that isn’t good enough in God’s view of things.

Notice what Samuel told Saul: “rebellion is no less a sin than divination, and stubbornness is like iniquity and idolatry” (v. 23). There is the truth of the matter. When we decide what is right and wrong; when we make the rules; when we decide what is sin, we have made ourselves God. And that is idolatry.

Third, disobedience is justly punished. Samuel rightly declared to Saul, “because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king” (v. 23). Saul gave lip service to repentance; but because it was insincere, it did him no good. His kingdom was lost even while he still reigned. As we are going to see in coming weeks, God chose David as the next king; and over a period of time, David came into favor with the people, even as Saul declined both personally and in popularity.

In the last essay we studied 13:1-15, in which we saw Saul’s first failure. The first passage with which we must deal in this essay is 13:16-22. It is a difficult passage, because it places Israel in such a weak position over against the Philistines, it hardly seems possible that they could have given a thought to rebelling against the Philistines, let alone defeating them in battle.

Verses 16-18 are not a problem. They simply tell us that the Philistines sent out three companies of raiders in three directions; namely, north, west and probably east. But verses 19-22 are a problem to my mind. According to those verses the Philistines had disarmed Israel so completely that only Saul and Jonathan had swords. And they also had removed all of the blacksmiths, so that the opportunity of making more arms was no longer there. The Israelites couldn’t even sharpen an ax or a plow themselves. They had to go to the Philistines for that service.

The obvious positive in this matter is that it clearly demonstrates the power of the Lord. Israel’s victory was strictly the Lord’s doing, because Israel had no ability to do anything for herself. But still there are questions. For example, when exactly did this disarming take place? Israel certainly seemed to have arms when they fought Nahash the Ammonite (ch. 11). And they would have captured more during that campaign.

It has been suggested that the disarming took place during the raids mentioned in verses 17 and 18. But those raids were quite limited in scope; and they occurred after the war had begun. That just was not possible. Moreover, why would the Philistines have avoided the south where Israel’s little army was located when they sent out the raiding parties? Why not send their superior forces against Israel’s weak army and wipe them out before the rebellion got off the ground?

There is no apparent answer to this question of when the disarming happened, or why the Philistines didn’t act as if Israel was unarmed. At any rate, verse 22 says, “on the day of the battle, neither sword nor spear was to be found in the possession of any of the people with Saul and Jonathan; but Saul and his son Jonathan had them.”

Verse 23 goes with chapter 14. So the next section is 13:23-14:7. In it we are told that Jonathan one day decided on an initiative against the Philistines on his own without telling his father. Saul was at Gibeah with his 600 men and a great grandson of Eli was serving there as his priest. Verse six tells us that Jonathan suggested to his armor-bearer that they go to the Philistine garrison. It also indicates that Jonathan was motivated by faith. The armor-bearer agreed, and Jonathan revealed his plan, which is seen in verses 8-15.

The plan was to show themselves to the Philistines; and if the Philistines told them to wait where they were, they would not attack. But if the Philistines told them to come up to them, that was what they would do, because it would be a sign that the Lord was with them (vv. 8-10).

Once again there are unanswered questions, because of the sketchy account. First, how could the armor-bearer participate in the killing of the Philistines when earlier we were told that Saul was the only person, in addition to Jonathan, who had a sword? No one knows the answer to that question.

Second, why were they able to have such success? One scholar suggested that it was the element of surprise. But that seems unlikely since Jonathan and the armor-bearer showed themselves to the Philistines. On the other hand, the terrain may have been so rugged that the original invitation to come up may have been more of a taunt than a real invitation. The Philistines may have thought it impossible for the Jews to attack them from that side.

At any rate, Jonathan and the armor-bearer climbed up and attacked the Philistines. They killed about 20 men, and the result was panic in the Philistine camp. Verses 16-23 tell us that Saul heard the commotion; and assuming that someone on his side caused it, Saul had a quick check of his troops made and discovered that it was Jonathan who was missing. He was going to have the priest consult God on what to do, but didn’t wait for that when he grasped the situation. He attacked with his full force.

Then the “Hebrews,” who were men of Israel, who had hired themselves out to the Philistines, turned on their employers creating further confusion. Other men of Israel who fearfully had hidden in caves and the like came out of hiding and joined the battle. And as verse 23 tells us, by the end of the day Saul’s forces numbered 10,000. And “so the Lord gave Israel the victory that day.”

Next, in verses 24-46, we find an interesting story of a stupid command by Saul that was followed later by a rash vow. Apparently before the battle, Saul had commanded his army, under threat of a curse, to fast throughout the day of the battle (v.24). That meant that they could not eat until after sundown. This was a foolish thing to do, because fighting is arduous; and soldiers need their full strength to fight and to pursue the enemy if victory is won.

But Saul’s troops accepted the vow. And they kept it, even though wild honey was plentiful; and they could have strengthened themselves with it (vv. 25-26). However Jonathan was ignorant of the command; and he ate some of the honey (v. 27). Jonathan immediately was told about the ban; but it was too late. He already had eaten (v. 28). Notice that Jonathan expressed disagreement with his father at once. Indeed he condemned the fast as having harmed Israel’s mop-up effort (vv. 29-30).

Next we see the consequences of the stupid command and the rash vow that followed. First, when sundown finally came, the troops were so hungry they slaughtered captured animals right on the ground and ate the meat without letting the blood drain out of it properly (vv. 31-32). And of course that is forbidden in the Law. Saul tried to get the mess straightened out by commanding the people to kill the animals on a large stone he provided, but many of them already had had sinned (vv. 33-34).

Then second, when Saul consulted the Lord about whether or not to pursue the Philistines during the night, the Lord didn’t answer (vv. 36-37). Therefore Saul knew something was wrong, that someone had sinned. It was at this point that Saul made the rash vow. In the frustration of the moment he rashly declared, “Come hither, all you leaders of the people; and know and see how this sin has arisen today. For as the Lord lives who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.” Of course it never occurred to him that it might actually be Jonathan (vv. 38-39a). The lots were cast first between Saul and Jonathan on the one hand and the rest of the people on the other. Saul probably was shocked when the lot fell on he and Jonathan rather than on the people (vv. 40-41). And then it fell on Jonathan (v. 42).

Saul was ready to kill Jonathan to fulfill his own foolish vow (vv. 43-44). But the people wouldn’t let him do it (v. 45). But even though Jonathan was saved, the pursuit of the Philistines was canceled. And so Saul not only caused many of his people to sin, he didn’t take full advantage of his victory over the Philistines (v. 46).

The chapter ends, in verses 47-52, with a summary of Saul’s other wars and the naming of some of Saul’s family and the commander of his army. And we see that Saul was quite successful in defending Israel against enemies all around.

Turning to application, we have a father and son, Saul and Jonathan, who are quite different. Saul once again proves himself to be a poor model, but Jonathan proves to be a good model.

Beginning with Jonathan, his original attack seemed foolish on the surface; and under some circumstances, it would have been foolish. But in this case, he was responding to the Lord’s inspiration. Therefore he acted not out of vanity or out of a sense of his own power. Rather he acted out of love for his people and in total dependence on God.

Jonathan also acted in faith and hope, because he had no absolute certainty that his conviction that the Lord was motivating him was in fact the case. Notice what he said to the armor-bearer, “it may be that the Lord will act for us.” And Jonathan knew that they would need the Lord’s help to be successful. And finally, Jonathan acted prudently by looking for a sign that made military sense. The suggestion by the Philistines to climb up to the Philistine defensive line meant that they did not think Jonathan and his armor-bearer could do it. And that meant surprise was possible.

It seems to me that we must be willing to follow the prompting of God, in total dependence on God, as Jonathan was. But like Jonathan, we must exercise our faith and hope prudently, rather than recklessly.

Saul, in contrast to Jonathan, as a leader imposed a needless burden on his army when he declared that they fast, without regard to the possible consequences. Thus Saul acted proudly and imprudently. Saul also caused his soldiers to sin when they, due to their great hunger, sinned by eating meat without properly draining away the blood.

In addition, Saul also was ready to kill his innocent son to satisfy his rash vow rather than consider his own error. And that brought deep humiliation on him, because the people would not let him do it. Of course the lesson for us is never to act imprudently out of pride; or to speak rashly out of frustration, especially when we have responsibility over others as a leader.

I once heard John Oswalt, former President of Asbury College, gave the following outstanding points about Saul in a sermon. Saul lost the confidence of God when he offered the sacrifices himself (back in chapter 13). Ponder the significance of that for a while. He lost the confidence of Samuel, his principle government ally, at the same time. And he lost the confidence of the people when he wanted to kill Jonathan to satisfy his vow. Lord, deliver us from making similar mistakes. Amen.

In the last essay we studied 1 Sam. 12 in which Samuel handed over the reigns of power to Saul. The context was the gathering of Israel at Gilgal after Saul was once again proclaimed king. Samuel took the opportunity to speak a farewell address to the people in which he not only turned over the day-to-day ruling to Saul, but also justified his own long rule.

Then in the balance of the chapter, Samuel challenged the people. “Now therefore take your stand and see this great thing that the Lord will do” (v. 16). Then Samuel concluded by reassuring them that he would continue to pray for them and instruct them in moral matters during his retirement (v. 23). Thus did Samuel make the transition from leadership to adviser and prophet. Saul was now the ruler and king.

All right, in this essay we study chapter 13, in which we see Saul’s first failure. To begin, the Hebrew of the first verse is terribly corrupted. In form it consists of the standard formula used to give the record of kings in the books of Samuel and Kings. The formula gives the age of the king when he began to reign and the length of his reign.

For example, in 2 Samuel 5:4 we read, “David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.” That is typical. But here at 1 Sam. 13:1 the numbers are corrupted. The Hebrew text, as we have it today, literally reads, “Saul was one year old when he began to reign; and he reigned two years over Israel.” Everyone understands that this is a corruption. The Greek Old Testament is no help, because it omits the verse altogether.

Most scholars agree that crucial numbers have somehow been lost from the text. Both Saul’s age when he came to the throne and the number of years he reigned have dropped out. Since Saul’s son Jonathan was a grown man when Saul became king, we know that Saul had to be at least 40. And the evidence available from the rest of the book suggests that he was king for at least 20 years. So it is possible that the text in respect to his reign originally read 22 instead of two years.

Verse two tells us that Saul, following his initial victory over Nahash the Ammonite, and the gathering at Gilgal at which Samuel handed over the reigns of power, dismissed everyone to their homes except for a force of 3,000 men. Saul took 2,000 of them and set up camp at Micmash, which was located a few miles directly west of Jericho. Then he posted the other thousand at Gibeah with Jonathan in command. Gibeah was just a few miles north of Jerusalem.

Next, verse three tells us that Jonathan precipitated a war with the Philistines. Notice that no explanation is given. We don’t know who attacked whom first. We are only told that “Jonathan defeated the garrison of the Philistines that was at Geba.” Geba was about half way between Gibeah and Micmash.

It would seem that Saul had not planned a war, because of his dismissal of the people earlier. He probably didn’t think they were ready for an all-out war yet. But once this battle, which Jonathan won took place, there was no choice. So the trumpet was sounded throughout the land both to proclaim Jonathan’s victory and to call the people to arms (v. 4).

The last clause of verse four literally reads, “the people let themselves be called together after Saul to Gilgal.” We must not forget that in those days it was difficult to force people to gather for a fight. If they didn’t think a situation was worthy of risking their lives, they just wouldn’t answer the call. But in this case they came.

However, we see in verses 5-7 that once they were on the field and saw the Philistine force they were opposing, their hearts melted. Israel did not react well to the overwhelming size of the Philistine army. However we need to realize that it probably was not quite as overwhelming as the text says. There is no way that the Philistines would have had a force of 30,000 chariots. Much larger, stronger nations than the Philistines never had those kinds of numbers. This is, undoubtedly another textual corruption of a number. It was probably 3,000 instead of 30,000. Nevertheless the effect on Israel was the same. They were completely intimidated. Many of them began to desert the cause, and those who didn’t were very frightened.

This was the situation when Saul failed for the first time. Way back in chapter 10, verse eight, on the occasion when Samuel first anointed Saul as king, Samuel had warned Saul that in the future, when sacrifices were to be made, he must wait for seven days until Samuel would come to offer the sacrifices. That was because Saul was anointed as a king, not as a priest.

Now in chapter 13 the time of testing has come. It is easy to sympathize with Saul. Verses 8-9 indicate that Saul was under tremendous pressure. The enemy force he was facing was superior. He had waited the required seven days. And with each passing day, his army was melting away before his eyes. From a military perspective, he had to act immediately, or all would be lost. So yielding to that pressure, Saul ordered the proposed burnt offerings to be brought to him; and he made the offerings himself.

Now some argue that this did not mean that Saul actually offered the sacrifices by his own hand. They say that priests would have been on hand to do those duties. In any case, as soon as Saul had finished the sacrifices, Samuel arrived. And verses 10-15 record their conversation and its aftermath.

Saul reveals his weakness in his reply to Samuel in verses 11-12. When Samuel asked him what he had done, Saul replied with self-justification. First of all, he claimed to have no choice: “the people were slipping away;” and the Philistines were threatening. Then second, he blamed Samuel: “you did not come within the days appointed.” And third, Saul claimed that he was honoring the Lord by his actions. After all he had not yet “entreated the favor of the Lord;” that is, he had not yet prayed. And it was necessary to pray before the battle.

As we analyze this self-justification, it certainly was true that Saul’s army was slipping away; and the Philistines were threatening. It is even true that Samuel technically didn’t get there within the required seven days. But Saul showed the true condition of his heart when he claimed to be honoring God with his decision.

He certainly knew that one could pray without offering sacrifices. That was what Hannah, the mother of Samuel, had done; and the Lord had answered her. Furthermore the Lord had commanded distinctly that only priests could offer sacrifices. Moreover Saul had been instructed to wait for Samuel. The fact that Samuel didn’t get there strictly within seven days did not give Saul the right to make the sacrifices. So Saul’s action was not appropriate. Indeed it was a sinful rebellion against the sovereignty of the Lord. And his claim that he had to force himself to do it rings really hollow.

Samuel saw right through Saul; and he charged him with being a fool. Remember, in the Scriptures, being a fool means more than lacking in intellect. The fool is one who is morally and spiritually blameworthy. And that undoubtedly was true of Saul. And then Samuel announced Saul’s punishment, which was extremely severe: “the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever,” Samuel said to Saul; “but now your kingdom will not continue.” In other words, there will be no dynasty for Saul’s family. His own rule was not immediately being cut off; but his sons would not succeed him.

Verse 15 reports that Samuel, after his confrontation with Saul, went to Gibeah; and Saul counted the number of people who still were with him. There were only 600 of them.

For application I would focus on verses 8-15. Just as Saul was a good model for us, as he began his reign. He quickly became a negative model once the reign was underway.

I would point out three aspects of Saul’s action at Gilgal; and two consequences of that action. First Saul did the expedient thing. That is, he yielded to the pressure instead of waiting for Samuel. Second, Saul did a sinful thing. His offering of the sacrifices was a direct disobedience to God. And then, third, Saul denied that he had sinned. He interpreted his action as one forced upon him by the circumstances.

But Saul had sinned; and Samuel let him know it in no uncertain terms. Obviously, the lesson for us here is not to turn to expedient solutions to our problems rather than to God’s solutions. We must not arrogantly sin, as Saul did. And when we sin, we must not make excuses for it. Rather we must repent and seek forgiveness.

There were two major consequences of what Saul had done. First, Saul lost his long-term blessing. His own reign would be the end of his royal line. No son of his would follow him on the throne. Instead the Lord would choose another to be king in his place. And second, Saul didn’t attain even his short-term objective. When he left Gilgal and moved towards battle with the Philistines, he had only 600 men with him. Yes, this was Saul’s first failure. Let us not follow his example.

After three weeks of traveling, and a week of recovery, Tillie and I are back on our regular schedules. So I am able to pick up the thread of our studies on 1 Samuel. Because of the long lay off, I will give a more extensive review than usual.

We have been studying Saul’s selection as king. And we have seen that the process was in two parts, one private and one public. In the essay before last, we studied the private aspect of it. Saul was a tall, handsome young man from the tribe of Benjamin who was sent to look for some straying donkeys belonging to his father.

While on the search, Saul and his servant consulted Samuel who happened to be in the same town they were in. Just the previous day the Lord had informed Samuel that he would meet the person who was to be anointed king the next day. And when Samuel saw Saul, the Lord revealed to him at that moment that Saul was the one. So Samuel immediately went into action. He honored Saul in various ways; and then the next morning, Samuel took oil and secretly anointed Saul to be the first king of Israel (10:1). He did it privately because there was a public process of selection that was necessary for the benefit of the people.

Then in the last essay we studied the public portion of Saul’s selection as king. The Scripture was chapter 10, verse 17, through chapter 11. There we saw the public selection being accomplished by the casting of lots, a common method of discerning God’s will in that culture. But this case was unusual in that the Lord already secretly had revealed his choice; and Samuel was trusting that the Lord would manipulate the lots to confirm what already had been revealed. And that is what the Lord did.

Before casting the lots, Samuel warned Israel once more of the mistake they were making in wanting a king. He reminded them that it was a rejection of the Lord. But they didn’t want to hear that. They wanted their king, and that was that (vv. 18-19).

After the selection of Saul by lot, Samuel informed the people of the rights and duties of the kingship. Then he wrote it in a book and laid the book before the Lord. That is, he placed it in the sanctuary where it would be both safe and accessible (v. 25). The purpose of it was to provide a kind of constitution so that the kings of Israel would not become cruel despots. And then he sent the people to their homes.

Interestingly, Saul also went to his home. That is, he didn’t immediately set up a government as such. But that is understandable. The only government any of them had ever known was that of the judges, especially that of Samuel. And Saul, in spite of being officially chosen as king had not yet proven himself in battle, which was often the way the judges gained the confidence of the people. Nor had Saul begun to judge the people, because Samuel still was doing that. So Saul didn’t exactly have a base of authority to lead the people. In other words, it took more than an announcement to become the king of Israel.

A month later Saul came face to face with his first opportunity to provide leadership to the nation. Nahash the Ammonite launched a major campaign against the eastern tribes by laying siege to Jabesh-gilead.

The people of Jabesh were willing to cut a deal and serve Nahash rather than suffer heavy casualties in a battle; but Nahash made the terms so severe that they asked for a week to seek help before making a decision. Nahash was willing to allow Jabesh a week to seek help for two reasons. First, he also didn’t want to take the heavy losses that would be necessary to take the city by force. And second, Nahash was confident that Jabesh would not get any help from the western tribes. So he could afford, he thought, to wait a week, after which Jabesh would surrender to him on his terms. But Nahash did not know about Saul.

Saul, under the power of the Holy Spirit, rose to the occasion. He took two oxen, cut them in pieces, and sent the pieces throughout Israel with the message from himself and Samuel that any person who didn’t “rally to the flag,” so to speak, at Bezek (which was located just across the Jordan from Jabesh-gilead) would have their oxen cut up. And 370,000 of the people came to Bezek (vv. 6-8).

As soon as the people were gathered, Saul sent a message to Jabesh-gilead that they would be delivered the next day (v. 9). And that was what happened (v. 11). The chapter ended with a grand celebration of Saul as king, a celebration that was not possible when Saul was first publicly elected, because Saul had not yet proved himself. Samuel realized that this was the time to cement Saul’s monarchy with the people. So he led the people to Gilgal, which was the place where Israel first camped when Joshua brought them into the promised land (Josh. 4:19), and which was easily accessed by the eastern tribes. And there they held another ceremony of making Saul king. This time all of Israel participated in the ceremony, and thus all Israel was committed to Saul as king in a way that was not true the first time.

Turning to application, we looked at Saul himself. Saul at this stage of his career provides a sterling example of leadership, and thus becomes an outstanding model for us. He was humble (9:21), trustworthy (10:16), patient, (10:26), self-controlled (10:27), decisive (11:6-7), courageous, faithful to the Lord, (11:13), and merciful (11:13).

All right, the passage for today is 1 Sam. 12 in which Samuel hands over the reigns of power to Saul. No specific context is given for Samuel’s speech in chapter 12; but it seems safe to assume that the previous context is continued; and that it took place at Gilgal after Saul was once again proclaimed king.

Samuel began by reminding the people that they now had a king because of their own desire, and that he now was their leader. Then Samuel began to justify his own life-long leadership.

In verses 1-5 you easily can see how Samuel vindicated his personal integrity. He invited anyone whom he had cheated or defrauded in any way to come forward and accuse him, with a promise that he would make it good if anyone did so. No one did.

But Samuel wasn’t just vindicating himself personally. He also was vindicating the type of rule he represented. Samuel was the last of the judges, and his successful rule suggested that rule by judges could work. He had not enriched himself; he had not favored the rich by taking bribes. Instead he had been just to all. And the Lord himself was a witness to that fact, as was the Lord’s anointed (Saul, the new king). And the people acknowledged that the Lord was witness to Samuel’s integrity and rule.

Next, in verses 6-11, Samuel continued his justification in a different way. In the balance of the speech Samuel wanted to press home to Israel that they had sinned in demanding a king, and that their sin was part of a long-standing pattern. So he called upon the Lord as a witness. The Lord not only was witness to Samuel’s integrity, he was a witness to Israel’s history. And throughout Israel’s history, the Lord had been faithful to Israel, while the people had been unfaithful to the Lord. And he gave specific examples

The Lord had brought the people out of Egypt and into the Promised Land (verses 6-8). But their ancestors had forgotten the Lord and sinned, which led to oppression by foreign powers (v. 9). But when the people repented of their sins, the Lord delivered them by raising up judges such as Jerubaal, which was Gideon’s other name (Judg. 6:32), Barak, Jephthah, and Samuel himself (vv. 10-11).

There is a bit of controversy about two of the names here. The Hebrew text has the name Bedan instead of Barak; but since no judge named Bedan is known, it is assumed that the Greek Old Testament is correct with its reading of Barak. Bedan probably represents an early copyist’s error. In addition the Greek reads Samson instead of Samuel, and some scholars believe that Samson is the original reading. That may be the case; but it would have been appropriate for Samuel to mention his own name, because he was a legitimate judge of real stature. Moreover it would have been a further demonstration that the people made a mistake to demand a king when Samuel’s rule had been so successful.

In verses 12-15 we see Samuel turning from Israel’s past to their present. You see the shift from past to present in verse 12, “But when you saw that king Nahash of the Ammonites came against you.” And then he charged them with demanding a king. The implication was that they were being disloyal to the Lord just as their ancestors had been.

But having said that, Samuel noted a huge positive in the situation. If Israel and her new king would both fear and follow the Lord from that time forward, all would be well (v. 14). What a great truth that is! It is as valid today as it was then. If we as God’s people will repent of our sins, and trust and obey him, all will be well.

But the opposite also is as true today as then. Samuel went on to say in verse 15: “but if you will not heed the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king.” The blessings of God for his people never have been automatic. We are God’s people, because we have a relationship with him; and we cannot continue to be blessed by him if the relationship is impaired or broken.

Then in verses 16-25 we see Samuel challenge the people. Samuel wanted to impress his words on the hearts of the people in dramatic fashion. So he challenged them, “Now therefore take your stand and see this great thing that the Lord will do.” And then he called upon the Lord to perform a miracle.

It was the time of the wheat harvest, which is roughly from the middle of May to the middle of June. Since it rarely rains in Palestine during the wheat harvest, Samuel called upon the Lord to send thunder and rain on the land that very day as a sign. And it happened (vv. 17-18)! The miraculous thunderstorm caused the people to fear; and they repented of their sins, including the sin of demanding a king (v. 19). But Samuel quickly soothed their fears, reminding them again that by serving the Lord with all their hearts, and keeping focused on that instead of on side issues, the Lord would never forsake them (vv. 20-22).

Then Samuel concluded by reassuring them that he would continue to pray for them and instruct them in moral matters in his retirement (v. 23). Thus did Samuel make the transition from leadership to adviser and prophet. Saul was now the ruler and judge. He was the king.

Turning to application, as we try to get at the key idea in the passage, we may find it in verses 3-5, where a topic that is appropriate to our day is found; namely, that of integrity in public office. Samuel’s example sets forth a magnificent pattern of public integrity.

First, public office is beset with temptations. When one is in a position of power, be it political, social, religious or otherwise, temptations are rampant. One can be tempted to prefer ease to service, to enrich oneself or one’s own family at the expense of others, to defraud or oppress the disadvantaged, to seek the praise of men rather than God, or to take sexual advantage of vulnerable persons. The temptations of public servants are many, but Samuel did not yield to those temptations.

Second, public office is open to public criticism. In Samuel’s case he invited criticism. But persons in public office are open to it in any case, because their position and decisions affect so many others that the public assumes a certain right to make judgments about the individuals’ activities. How often have we seen persons in public office seek to cover up their activities rather than to invite criticism as Samuel did.

Third, public office occasionally requires vindication. Sometimes people in public service are falsely accused of wrongdoing. And when that happens the individual needs vindication. Samuel felt that necessity here, because his kind of rule as a judge was being replaced by a monarchy; and he wanted it made clear that the change was due to the sins of the people, not due to a breakdown in God’s rule through judges. Another example is the apostle Paul who defended his apostleship when false teachers spread false tales about him.

Israel had asked for a king; and to Samuel’s surprise, the Lord told Samuel to give them one (8:1-18). So the next question was that of who the new king would be. In our last essay we saw the story of the Lord’s choice of Saul as the king, which was done in private. In this essay we shall see the public portion of Saul’s selection as king in 10:17-11:15.

The first segment, 10:17-24, shows the Lord doing something that the Jews often expected him to do, namely, manipulate lots. But this manipulation is different. The usual procedure was to cast lots with the expectation that the Lord would manipulate them to cause his choice to emerge. That is, whatever decision came forth from the lots was accepted as the Lord’s choice. But in this case, the Lord already had revealed his choice; and Samuel was trusting that the Lord would manipulate the lots to confirm what already had been revealed. And that is what he did.

Casting lots in that culture was similar to casting dice in ours, except that we do not cast dice to discover the will of God. People in our culture cast dice to play games or gamble.

In order to announce God’s choice for king, Samuel had to do it in a way that would be acceptable to the people. He couldn’t just say that the Lord had told him who it was. They would have been suspicious of that. So he went through the expected pattern of casting lots. And as you see, the lot fell on the tribe of Benjamin, then on Saul’s family, and finally on Saul himself (vv. 20-21).

Notice that Samuel, before casting the lots, warned Israel once more of the mistake they were making in wanting a king. He reminded them that it was a rejection of the Lord. But they didn’t want to hear that. They wanted their king, and that was that (vv. 18-19).

Interestingly, when the lot revealed Samuel as the new king, he was nowhere to be found (v. 21). Scholars have speculated about why Saul hid himself. For example, it is suggested that he was just being humble and modest, or that he was fearful the lot would not point to him. But there is no way to know. The Lord, apparently through Samuel, told the people where Saul was hiding; and they went to get him (vv. 22-23). And he was introduced to the people as their new king (v. 24).

The fact that Samuel informed the people of the rights and duties of the kingship in verses 25-27 is important. Samuel used a different word here for “kingship” (meluchah) from the one he used back in 8:11, where Samuel was speaking of the “ways of a king” (melech). There he was referring to the oppressive rule of a despotic king (8:11-18). Here Samuel was speaking about the proper “rights and duties” of the kingship over the Lord’s people under the overarching rule of God. The purpose of this list of “rights and duties” was to avoid the kind of despotic rule mentioned in chapter eight. Samuel put the “rights and duties” in writing and laid the book before the Lord. That is, he placed it in the sanctuary where it would be both safe and accessible (v. 25). And then he sent the people to their homes.

Interestingly, Saul also went to his home. That is, he didn’t immediately set up a government as such. But that is understandable. The only government any of them had ever known was that of the judges, especially that of Samuel. And Saul, in spite of being officially elected king had not yet proven himself in battle, which was often the way the judges gained the confidence of the people. Nor had Saul e taken on the responsibility of judging the people, because Samuel still was doing that. So Saul didn’t exactly have a basis of authority to lead the people. In other words, it took more than an announcement to become the leader of the people.

Indeed we can see in verses 26-27 that there was a division respecting Saul from the beginning. Some fighting men went with him to Gibeah in a show of loyalty to their new king. But others “despised him.” Saul knew about the latter group, but he “held his peace.” That is, he didn’t challenge them. Instead he ignored them.

In 11:1-4 we see that not long afterward, Saul came face to face with his first opportunity to provide leadership to the nation. In the next chapter (12:12), we will see that Nahash had made his original thrust against the east-bank tribes of Israel prior to Saul’s election. Indeed Nahash’s aggression was part of Israel’s reason for wanting a king. But now Nahash had launched a major campaign by laying siege to Jabesh-gilead. Jabesh-gilead was just on the east side of the Jordan River, about half way between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee.

The people of Jabesh were willing to cut a deal and serve Nahash; but Nahash made the terms so severe that they asked for a week to seek help before making a decision. Now that may seem strange to us, but it makes perfect sense in that context. On the one hand, Jabesh was willing to serve Nahash, because they didn’t want to suffer the inevitable losses that a fight would bring. On the other hand, Nahash was willing to allow Jabesh a week to seek help for two reasons. First, he also didn’t want to take the heavy losses that would be necessary to take the city by force. And second, Nahash was confident that Jabesh would not get any help from the western tribes. So he could afford, he thought, to wait a week, after which Jabesh would surrender to him on his terms. But Nahash did not know about Saul.

In verses 5-11 we see that Saul, under the power of the Holy Spirit, rose to the occasion. He took two oxen, cut them in pieces, and sent the pieces throughout Israel with the message that any person who didn’t “rally to the flag,” so to speak, at Bezek would have their oxen cut up. Notice that the call went out not just in the name of Saul, but also in the name of Samuel. Samuel at this point still was the most important man in Israel. And the people came to Bezek, 370,000 of them (vv. 6-8). Bezek, by the way, was located just across the Jordan from Jabesh-gilead.

You may remember the story in Judges 19 about the man whose concubine was killed by the inhabitants of Gibeah. He cut her body in pieces and sent them around to the twelve tribes in order to express his outrage. And the tribes responded by going to war against Gibeah. Well, we see that Saul received a similar response. Saul immediately sent a message to Jabesh-gilead that they would be delivered the next day (v. 9). And that was what happened (v. 11).

Now then, the chapter ends, in verses 12-15, with a grand celebration of Saul as king, a celebration that was not possible when Saul was first publicly elected. Notice first of all that as soon as Saul’s reign was secure, certain of his supporters wanted to take revenge on those who had not supported Saul earlier (v. 12; cf. 10:27). But Saul proved to be both generous and pious in response to that suggestion. He said, “No one shall be put to death this day, for today the Lord brought deliverance to Israel” (v. 13).

Samuel, being a consummate leader realized that this was the time to cement Saul’s monarchy with the people. So he led the people to Gilgal, which was the place where Israel first camped when Joshua brought them into the Promised Land (Josh. 4:19). And of course that was a spot that was easily accessed by the eastern tribes. And there they held another ceremony of making Saul king. It might seem to us unnecessary to do that, but Samuel knew what he was doing. This time all of Israel participated in the ceremony, and thus all Israel was committed to Saul as king in a way that was not true the first time.

The “big idea” in this lesson is the public installation of Saul as king. The institution of the monarchy was itself a huge step. Not only did the people have to adjust to having a king instead of a judge, their commitment to whomever was chosen to be that king was necessary for the monarchy to succeed. So this was a crucial time for Israel.

Turning to application, I believe the most helpful thing we can look at is Saul himself. At this stage of his career, Saul provided a sterling example of leadership. In other words, he provides an outstanding model for our own lives.

First, he was humble. He believed himself unworthy of selection as king (9:21). Second, Saul was trustworthy. For example, he didn’t reveal to his family that Samuel had told him he would be king (10:16). Third, Saul was patient. After he was proclaimed king, he went back home rather than attempt to seize the reigns of power prematurely (10:26). Fourth, Saul exhibited self-control. He held his peace regarding those who refused to support his kingship immediately after he was publicly chosen (10:27). But fifth, he was decisive. He demonstrated that when faced with the urgent plea of the eastern tribes at Jabesh-gilead. He took immediate, decisive action against Nahash (11:6-7). Sixth, Saul was a man of courage. He didn’t hesitate to lead Israel into battle against Nahash (11:11). Seventh, Saul was faithful to the Lord. He quickly gave the Lord the credit for the victory over Nahash (11:13). And eighth, Saul was merciful. He refused to take revenge against those persons who earlier refused to support him (11:13). All of these characteristics are admirable and worthy of emulating to this day.

In closing I want to make four points regarding Saul’s installation as king. First, the installation of Saul as king was preceded by a rebuke (10:18-19). Samuel charged Israel of rejecting the Lord, of being disloyal. Second, the Lord directed the installation (10:20-22). He manipulated the lots so that the one whom he already had revealed to be the chosen one would be selected. Third, Saul’s installation was confirmed by most of the people (10:23-24). They shouted, “Long live the king!” And fourth, the installation of Saul was accompanied by regulations for the conduct of the king (10:25). Samuel was careful to provide rules that would, if followed, keep Israel’s kings from being despots.