Friday, June 21
First Samuel 7: This chapter begins on a chronological note: the twenty years during which the Ark of the Covenant remained at Kirjath Jearim. If this length of time is taken to indicate the whole period before the Ark’s removal to Jerusalem under David, it appears to be too short for adjustment into Old Testament chronology. It seems more likely, therefore, that the twenty years indicates the period prior to the battle described later in this chapter.
During these two decades, we are informed, Israel “mourned to the Lord” (according to the Hebrew) and “turned to the Lord” (according to the Greek). That is to say, it was a time of spiritual renewal, when the Israelites, under the maturing leadership of Samuel, did four things: yearned for the Lord, put away idols, committed themselves, and served the Lord alone (verses 3-4). Their resolve was expressed in a rededication, symbolized in fasting, a water libation (cf. Lamentations 2:19), the confession of sins, and a sacrifice accompanied by prayer (verses 5-6,9).
This rededication took place at Mizpah, one of the cities included in Samuel’s annual circuit as judge (verse 16). The site is probably to be identified with Tell en-Nasbeh, eight miles north of Jerusalem. Mizpah is the place where Israel will choose monarchy over the charismatic leadership exercised by Samuel and the Judges.
Those converted to the Lord should anticipate an experience of trial, and this sequence is illustrated in the story that follows: the Philistines, victorious in their last military encounter with Israel, are bent on battle (verse 7). Their prompt and dramatic rout is credited to Samuel’s intercessory prayer (verses 9-10). This is one incident (cf. 12:19) that strengthened the memory of Samuel as a champion of intercession (cf. Jeremiah 15:1; Psalms 99 [98]:6).
This victory comes from neither Israel’s military muscle nor Samuel’s martial leadership, but solely from the Lord, who puts the Philistines to confusion by a superlative display of thunder and lightning. References to this display are found in the hymns that begin (2:10) and end (2 Samuel 22:14) the original Book of Samuel.
The erection of a ceremonial stone to commemorate this victory (verse 12) has many parallels throughout military history.
In the general narrative development of this book, the present chapter represents the countervailing voices of those not convinced that Israel truly needed a king. In subsequent chapters—but especially at Mizpah in chapter 10—the opposite view would eventually prevail: Israel would have its king. Still, the book’s author determined that both sides of the argument should be heard. For him—and for the book’s final editors in the late sixth century—the material in this chapter bears witness that Israel needed no king but the Lord. What Israel did need was mourning, conversion, rededication, fasting, and prayer. The “rock of help”—Ebenezer—stood in silent but eloquent testimony to this thesis. The full significance of Israel’s experiment with monarchy was complex, but that complexity included the fact that monarchy, over the centuries, led to Israel’s historical ruin. No one knew this better than the survivors of 587 B. C.
Saturday, June 22
1 Samuel 8: Here begins the chronicle of Israel’s transition to monarchy, framed between Samuel’s two antimonarchical warnings in chapters 8 and 12.
Israel’s movement to monarchy occurred around 1020 (some thirty years after the fall of Shiloh), and here again—as he did with Eli—Samuel served as the bearer of bad news.
Though his own instincts opposed the idea of kingship, regarding it at first as a rebellion against God’s covenant, Samuel bore some of the blame for this development. His failure to discipline his sons, after all, was the immediate reason given for the need of a king (verses 1–5).
There is an irony here. Samuel himself had witnessed how Eli’s failure to discipline his sons had earlier led to the destruction of Shiloh (1 Samuel 2:12–17, 22–25). It is no small paradox that Samuel, ever the visionary of the future, should be suddenly confronted with déjà vu.
Israel’s demand for a king is based on a desire to be “like other nations.” That is to say, it is a rejection of the unique character imposed by Israel’s covenanted relationship to the Lord. Essential to that covenant was the understanding that Israel was not like the other nations: its government was based on a theological premise, not a political contract.
Wanting to be “like other nations” was part of Israel’s constant disposition to worship “other gods.” As a radically unfaithful sentiment, it was just the most recent act in a rebellion going back to the time of the desert wandering (verses 7-8; cf. 10:18-19; 12:12; Judges 8:22-23).
Samuel prayed (verse 6). This prayer of frustration stands in striking contrast to his victorious prayer in the previous chapter (7:7-9).
And once again God spoke to Samuel, instructing him to accede to the people’s clamor for a king (verses 7–8). The author gives no explanation why the Lord acceded to the people’s request, nor, in the light of Israel’s subsequent history, was such an explanation necessary. God’s purpose was complex; indeed, human sinfulness made it complex.
Moreover, Samuel was the man God wanted to anoint that king (10:1). As Israel’s “seer” (9:9), however, he was also directed to foretell to the people the dire consequences of their choice. The sad list of evils that the seer predicted as attendant on the institution of kingship (8:11–18) was a prophecy amply fulfilled in the following centuries. It was truly bad news: Israel’s kings will equal and surpass the ancient oppression of Pharaoh. As they did in Egypt, the Israelites will once again cry out for deliverance from oppression, but the Lord—this time—will pay them no heed. The evil history of Israel’s kingship will run its full course.
Sunday, June 23
1 Samuel 9: Samuel’s dismissal of the people at the end of chapter 8 cleared the stage, as it were, for a new development. Now, Saul enters the stage, described as a young man of wealth and impressive physical appearance (cf. 10:23). Saul is not conscious of such things at the moment; becoming a king is the thing furthest from his mind. He is looking for his father’s wandering donkeys (verses 1-4).
When the lengthy search for the donkeys leads to nothing but frustration (verse 5), Saul’s servant (who appears in this scene as a sagacious man, perhaps older) favors recourse to oracular assistance (verses 6-10). By this time they have arrived at Zuph, near Ramah (cf. 1:19).
Our author, who described Samuel’s habitual circuit travels (7:16-17), set up thereby the circumstances of the prophet’s meeting with Saul. Samuel is not named at this point, but his ministry as a seer is described as particularly efficacious (verse 6; cf. Deuteronomy 13:1-3; 18:21-22). The unnamed servant provides the remuneration of the unnamed seer (verse 8; cf. 1 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings 4:42; Amos 7:12; Micah 3:5).
As Saul is seeking the donkeys, Samuel is searching for a king. This is the author’s way of saying that the providential Lord is preparing them to meet.
In fact, the Lord spoke to Samuel the day before Saul’s arrival (verse 15). That is to say, the God of providence was working from two sides in order to bring about the encounter between these two men. Nor is the present story the Bible’s sole example of the Lord pressing a meeting from two directions. Another instance is the account of the founding of the Church at Caesarea, for which the Lord revealed His will to Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10:1-8) and, the following day, to Peter at Joppa (10:9-16). As in the case of Samuel and Saul, it was the divine intent to cause these two men to meet. As though to emphasize this point, each man later narrated the details of the revelation (10:28-33; cf. 11:4-18).
In Samuel’s initial meeting with Saul (verses 17-21), two themes are especially worthy of note:
First, Samuel learns that Saul is the Lord’s chosen “prince and savior” (verse 16; cf. Stephen’s description of Moses in Acts 7:35). Saul is God’s reply to the people who cried to Him in their affliction (cf. 7:8-9; 12:8,10; Exodus 3:7,9; 4:31; Deuteronomy 26:7; Judges 3:9,15; 4:3; 6:6; 10:2,13,14; 2 Kings 14:26). Clearly, the whole question of kingship is treated very differently from the previous chapter: Whereas the Lord reluctantly agreed to a monarchy in chapter 8, here in chapter 9 monarchy represents the Lord’s intervention for deliverance.
Second, in professing his own low estate (verse 21), Saul picks up the theme—introduced by Hanna in 2:8—of the Lord’s exaltation of the humble.
We learn that Samuel, in prophetic anticipation of his encounter with Saul, had already enjoined the cook to prepare something special for the young man. Even before his anointing, Saul is given preeminence at table.
The next morning, Samuel separates Saul from his servant, mentioning a special message he is to receive in private.
Monday, June 24
1 Samuel 10: Even as he anoints Saul as “prince” (nagid—verse 1), Samuel foretells three signs that will reassure the young man, who may be rather confused by the unexpected of events of the past day or so. The first prophesied sign is an encounter with two men, who will tell him the lost donkeys were found (verse 2). The second sign is Saul’s meeting with three men who will feed him (verses 3-4). The third sign is an encounter with a group of prophets, in whose company Saul will receive the gift of prophecy (verses 5-6).
In order to avoid any confusion about these events, Samuel foretells them in considerable detail, including the exact place where each of them will occur: Ramah (Rachel’s grave), Tabor, and Gibeath-Elohim. After these three signs, Samuel instructs him, Saul is to wait for him at Gilgal.
Only the third of the three signs is narrated in the text: Saul’s reception of the prophetic spirit (verses 1-13). This outpouring of the “Spirit of God”—Ruach Elohim—is the grace Saul shares with Israel’s earlier charismatic leaders: Gideon (Judges 6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and Samson (14:6,19; 15:14).
On his arrival home, Saul remains silent about the extraordinary events of recent days (verses 14-16; Compare Judges 14:4-6). This silence clears the stage for the stories that follow (10:17—11:15).
The last time Samuel assembled the Israelites at Mizpah, the Lord’s deliverance proved that they needed no earthly king (7:5-12). It is profoundly ironical, therefore, that the people are now summoned to Mizpah for the purpose of choosing an earthly king (verse 17). Samuel takes back nothing, however, from his earlier declaration: Israel’s craving for a monarch is tantamount to a rejection of the Lord (verse 19; cf. 8:7).
God’s choice of a king is determined by a process of casting lots (verses 20-21; cf. 14:41; Joshua 7:13; Acts 1:15-26). The chosen Saul is reluctant, notwithstanding the “signs” he had been given (verses 1-13). He is burdened by the same sense of modesty (verse 22; cf. verse 16; 9:21). It is hard, however, for a tall man to hide (verse 23), and Samuel is clearly impressed by Saul’s height (verse 24). (The Lord will later caution the prophet on this point—16:7!)
“Long live the king! (verse 24) became a customary acclamation in the Bible (2 Samuel 16:16; 1 Kings 1:25,34,39-40; 2 Kings 11:12).
This is to be a “constitutional monarchy,” and Samuel is charged to compose the charter (cf. Deuteronomy 17:14-20).
Now that the Lord has made His will known with respect to Saul, our author takes a dim view of those who oppose him (verse 27). Later opponents of the throne will merit the same negative regard (2 Samuel 16:17; 20:1; 23:6).
For the present, there is nothing further for Saul to do (verse 26). He must wait until some occasion presents itself: “Do whatever comes to hand, for God is with you” (verse 7). The new king will not have long to wait, for trouble is brewing in the land of Ammon.
Tuesday, June 25
1 Samuel 11: The abrupt beginning of this chapter appears to be truncated. In fact, a longer version of it was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last century (4QSam). It reads, “King Nahash of the Ammonites was severely oppressing the Gadites and Reubenites, boring out every right eye, and allow no one to save Israel. Among the Israelites on the other side of the Jordan, no one was left whose right eye King Nahash of the Ammonites had not bored out. Nonetheless, seven thousand men had escaped from the power of the Ammonites and had arrived at Jabesh Gilead.”
This expanded version was apparently known to Josephus (Antiquities 6.5.1[68]), who recounts the story this way: “Nahash had done a great deal of mischief to the Jews that lived beyond Jordan by the expedition he had made against them with a great and warlike army. He also reduced their cities into slavery, and that not only by subduing them for the present, which he did by force and violence, but by weakening them by subtlety and cunning, that they might not be able afterward to get clear of the slavery they were under to him; for he put out the right eyes of those that either delivered themselves to him upon terms, or were taken by him in war; and this he did, that when their left eyes were covered by their shields, they might be wholly useless in war.
“Now when the king of the Ammonites had served those beyond Jordan in this manner, he led his army against those that were called Gileadites, and having pitched his camp at the metropolis of his enemies, which was the city of Jabesh, he sent ambassadors to them, commanding them either to deliver themselves up, on condition to have their right eyes plucked out, or to undergo a siege, and to have their cities overthrown. He gave them their choice, whether they would cut off a small member of their body, or universally perish. However, the Gileadites were so affrighted at these offers, that they had not courage to say any thing to either of them, neither that they would deliver themselves up, nor that they would fight him. But they desired that he would give them seven days’ respite, that they might send ambassadors to their countrymen, and entreat their assistance; and if they came to assist them, they would fight; but if that assistance were impossible to be obtained from them, they said they would deliver themselves up to suffer whatever he pleased to inflict upon them.”
Both Josephus and the Septuagint indicate that this happened one month after Samuel’s meeting with Israel at Mizpah.
Already designated by prophetic inspiration (9:15-16) and oracular verification (10:17-24), Saul will now be elected king by popular acclaim (verses 12-15). The acclamation follows Saul’s quick executive response to the crisis at Jabesh Gilead (verses 5-7). Whereas the report from that city caused great sorrow and consternation throughout Israel (verse 4; Josephus, Antiquities 6.5.2[74]), only Saul arose to take the matter decisively in hand. He thus demonstrated early the prompt resolve and high energy level that would, in due course, prove to be his undoing.
“The Spirit of the Lord” came on Saul (verse 6), as was the case with Samson (Judges 14:6,19; 15:4). Josephus describes him as “enthusiastic” (entheos), in the literal sense of being “God-possessed” (6.5.2[76]). This possession was marked by a righteous anger.
Anger, in turn, inspired fear, as Saul intended it should (verse 7), so a significant military force was assembled at the Jordan, ready to cross over and relieve the siege of Jabesh (verse 8).
The exact size of this force—about which there is no agreement among the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, the Qumran scroll, and Josephus—is unclear. It was certainly smaller than the English translations indicate, because the Hebrew term ’eleph, almost always translated as “thousand,” more properly means “band.” These “bands” of soldiers usually included far fewer than a thousand soldiers. In any case, Saul’s force was more than adequate for the given task.
Nahash, misunderstanding the deliberately ambiguous response from the besieged city, was ill prepared for the surprise attack Saul launched at his rear and both flanks (verses 10-11). This attack followed an all-night forced march by Saul’s army (Josephus, 6.5.3[79]). Saul’s maneuver, apparently borrowed from Gideon and Abimelech (Judges 7:16; 9:43), demonstrated that his powers of military leadership were supplemented by genuine tactical skill.
Wednesday, June 26
Mark 6:1-6: The story of Jesus’ rejection in his native town is told in greater detail in Luke 4. The townspeople were reluctant to feel enthused about someone they had known since his childhood. They could name everybody in Jesus’ family. For all of his adult life they citizens of Nazareth were familiar with Jesus as a local artisan, someone who fixed their roofs and repaired their ploughs. They were aware that he had not gone off anywhere to study. So, indeed, “Where did he get all this?” That is to say, the townsfolk knew Jesus only “according to the flesh.”
Losers, that’s what they were. Because of the prevailing attitude toward him, Jesus was UNABLE to so much for them, Mark tells us.
Acts 14:1-20: The city of Iconium (the present Konya), located about ninety miles southeast of Pisidian Antioch, was the regional capital of Lycaonia (cf. 14:6; 2 Timothy 3:11). The pattern of the mission in Pisidian Antioch is repeated in Iconium. Once again the apostles begin to evangelize the city by visiting the local synagogue, and the diverse responses of the various groups is identical to what we saw in the previous chapter.
There is more going on than meets the eye, however. The very active Jesus continues to work His wonders within the body of believers (verse 3); however concealed from the view of the world, Jesus still walks among the candlesticks (Revelation 1:13; Matthew 28:20; Mark 16:17-20; 2 Corinthians 6:16). As the apostles flee from Iconium (verse 6), the Gospel is spread still farther. Lystra, whither they flee, is about twenty-five miles to the southwest. Here, Paul’s healing of the lame man parallels the miracle of Peter in 3:2-8; the similarities, even down to small details, is striking.
The response of the crowd in their own native tongue indicates what we might not otherwise have known, namely, that the apostles have been preaching through an interpreter. Inasmuch as a great deal “gets lost in translation,” the crowd has evidently missed some of the finer points in the apostolic message. Monotheism, for instance! Witnessing the miraculous healing, these enthusiasts promptly identify the apostles with pagan gods.
Their identification of Paul with Hermes, or the Latin “Mercury,” is explained in verse 12, where we learn that Paul did most of the talking. With respect to Barnabas, it is reasonable to think that his identification as Zeus, or the Latin “Jupiter” (“Zeus Pater,” or “Zeus the father”) probably had something to do with certain physical features (great height, large head, broad shoulders, and a majestic beard over a massive chest) and a more solemn presence. (Contrast this with Paul’s physical appearance in 2 Corinthians 10:10) So Paul is Hermes the messenger; Barnabas is the strong, silent Zeus, who commands by his presence.
Historians of literature draw our attention to a parallel story of Zeus and Hermes visiting Phrygia, preserved by Ovid, Metamorphosis 8:611-628).
The very brief sermon of the apostles (verses 15-17) probably represents their typical approach to pagans outside the synagogue; it may serve as the outline to the longer sermon that Paul will give the philosophers in Athens in 17:22-31. The fickle crowd ends the story by stoning Paul, an incident he will later mention in 2 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Timothy 3:11.
Thursday, June 27
1 Samuel 13: This chapter and the next form a single narrative, in which we already discern signs that Saul did not measure up to the Lord’s idea of kingship.
Two preliminary observations are in order, one about the text and the other about the sociological context:
First, following the lead of most Greek manuscripts, we should probably drop the first verse.
Second, the self-references to the “Hebrews” (verses 3,7)—rare in the Bible—are explained by a contextual connotation. As it was common for non-Israelites to refer to the Israelites as “Hebrews” (verse 19), the usage in this chapter reflects the social condition of the Israelites vis-à-vis these non-Semitic Philistines. Indicating “transients” and a folk of inferior status, the name “Hebrews” in this chapter conveys the contempt the Philistines felt toward them. De facto, the Philistines had become overlords of the Israelites. The military campaign in these two chapters, therefore, was one of liberation, a battle “for freedom” (ep’ elevtheriaˆ), as Josephus wrote (Antiquities 6.6.1[98]).
An economic and technical component expressed this social and political subjugation of Israel to the Philistines: the limited access to iron. The events chronicled in the Book of Samuel took place at the beginning of the Iron Age in the Holy Land. Iron was scarce, as was the technology for using it. Four chapters later, for example, we observe that the plentiful armor of Goliath included only one piece of iron (17:7); all the rest was bronze (17:5-6).
The Philistines used this monopoly—access to mines, milling technology, foundries, files, and forges—to control Israel’s agricultural economy (verses 19-22) and to enforce a strict arms embargo.
This chapter begins a series of military encounters. In verse 2 the troop numbers suggest a standing militia rather than an entire fighting force. Indeed, Josephus identified these groups as bodyguards (somatophylakein) for Saul and Jonathan (6.6.1[95]).
Jonathan, commanding a third of this group, is mentioned without introductory comment, though the Syriac version identifies him here as Saul’s son. Jonathan will be very important, of course, to the story in these two chapters.
After an Israelite victory over the Philistine garrison at Gibeah—perhaps by surprise attack—both sides rally. Saul’s rallying cry, “Hebrews, take notice!” conveys a sense of “slaves, arise” (verse 3). The Philistines, meanwhile, were more successful in raising an army swiftly (verse 5), causing the Israelites to panic.
Saul, with a diminished and constantly diminishing force, grew anxious as he awaited the arrival of Samuel, who was to conduct the appropriate pre-battle sacrifices. After a week passed, he determined to take matters into his own hands (verses 8-10), and at that point Samuel finally arrived. As the action of the king was disobedient, Samuel condemned it harshly (verses 11-14), seeing in the king’s infidelity a fulfillment of his earlier prophecy that Israel’s kings would be arrogant men.
Samuel declared that Saul’s lineage would not occupy the throne of Israel: “But now your kingdom shall not continue” (verse 14). This threat, of course, directly touched Jonathan, the prince and heir-apparent. As for Saul, he was not yet rejected outright.
The two armies camped over against each other and prepared for combat (verses 15-18,22).
Friday, June 28
1 Samuel 14: In the previous chapter Saul forfeited Jonathan’s succession to the throne (13:13-14). In the present chapter we see him put Jonathan’s very life in danger. The irony of this story is introduced by Jonathan’s remarkable military exploit, with which the chapter begins (verses 1-16).
The contrast grows between this son and father: Whereas Saul feared having too small an army to face the Philistines (13:11), Jonathan declared, “the Lord is not constrained to deliver by the many or by the few” (verse 6). He went on to demonstrate that thesis by taking a single companion with him to engage and rout the Philistines, a force earlier described “as the sand on the seashore” (13:4).
It appears that in large part Jonathan owed his victory, not only to his boldness and the advantage of surprise, but also to other conditions: (1) the relative weakness of the picket force guarding the top of the sheer crags (Josephus 6.6.2[108-109]); (2) the drowsiness of the defending army in the early morning light; (3) a confusion among the defenders—a mixed force of allied components (6.6.2[114])—who subsequently turned on one another in the bedlam (verse 20).
Saul, for his part, was showing signs of being what today would be called a “control freak.” Indeed, it was for this failing, which Samuel saw as a failure of faith, that the king was chided in the previous chapter (13:12). Here, too, Saul responded to Jonathan’s bold exploit by, once again, counting his troops (verse 17). The reader comes to realize that Jonathan would make a better king than Saul, and then he reflects that the father has already forfeited the son’s succession to the throne. A strong sense of impending tragedy sets in, and a suspicion that the king is losing his right mind.
At last discerning his army’s advantage, Saul made a precipitous decision to follow up the attack (verses 19-20). Other Israelites in the neighborhood followed suit (verse 21), and the army quickly swelled from 600 to 10,000 (verses 22-24), as deserters (cf. 13:5) came out of their hiding places.
Suddenly rising to a manic state, the king gave an imprudent order, followed by the enforcement of a rash oath: Until the battle was over, no soldier was to eat, under penalty of death (verse 24). By way of explaining Saul’s flight from rationality here, Josephus remarked, “reason runs out on the lucky” (6.6.3[116]).
When Jonathan, ignorant of the oath, violated his father’s injunction and was taken to task by a fellow soldier, he treated the matter with nonchalance, not to say contempt. In the end, the army defended him against his irrational father.
In this chapter the true and effective leadership has clearly passed from Saul to Jonathan, who wins the loyalty of the army. This same leadership and popularity are soon to pass to David.
For the nonce, however, Saul remains king and continues victorious (verses 46-48). The chapter closes with summary comments about his family (verses 49), especially introducing Abner and Saul’s two daughters, who will be important when David comes on the scene. The final verse, about military recruitment, opens yet another door, through which David soon will come on stage (verse 52).