1 Samuel – From Judges to a Desire for a King
(Dec. 5, 2025)
Samuel is the last of the judges and the first of the prophets. 1 and 2 Samuel cover the two-century period from end of the book Judges to David becoming King, when the twelve tribes of Israel go from being a barely organized confederacy to one of a powerful kingdom of the time. You can remember it as Samuel, Saul, and David to the death of Saul. The predominant theme is God's sovereignty and God delegation of kingship, as people both wrongfully exercise and rightfully anticipate it.
A secondary theme of 1 Samuel is defiance. Was the Philistine god Dagon more powerful than the God of Israel, whose ark was set before Dagon? They would find out. Was Goliath more powerful than David? Actually yes, much more powerful. But David plus God was a different story.
At one level 1 Samuel can be thought of as God working in the "motley" ways of His people until the death of King Saul. But on another level it is a study of how a people fighting for their freedom voluntarily chose to be under the rule of a monarch. You can sort of think of it as goals similar to the American War of Independence, except in reverse. Yet even after the American Revolution, some people wanted to make George Washington a king. Could a relatively free people want to go into reverse today? Whether voluntary or not, would a people voluntarily set in action a course to put them under a dictator? You can ask the people of Venezuela, Russia, Belarus, Iran, and Germany under Hitler. You can ask U.S. college study, of which one study said that they supported violence to limit free speech. Why would people choose to do that? As we study 1 Samuel to search the reason, we might discover that the answer is uncomfortable, because it is inside all of us. So 1 and 2 Samuel can be considered a study of little-discussed aspects of human nature, and how God dealt with that among His people.
See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.296, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.431-432, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.2-3, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.100, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.190, and The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 3 p.557-562 for more extensive answers.
Why are 1 and 2 Samuel sometimes called 1 and 2 Kings?
Here is a bit of history of the division and names of Samuel. In the ancient Hebrew text, 1 and 2 Samuel were one book, called Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings were one book, called Kings. The Masoretic notes said that Samuel had 1,506 verses, and 1 Samuel 28:24 was the middle verse. But since it was so long, and unwieldy to have all in one scroll, it was split into two books in the Septuagint. They split it at the right spot. Joshua starts with "After the death of Moses", Judges starts with "After the death of Joshua", 2 Kings is "After Ahab's death", and 2 Samuel is "after the death of Saul". 2 Samuel 1-20 has a specific structure that stands together.
Modern Jewish Bibles have it split this way too. The Septuagint first split the two books, calling them 1 and 2 Kings, and what we know as 1 and 2 Kings the Septuagint called 3 and 4 Kings. Collectively they were called the Books of Kingdoms. When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, we kept the same names, calling them collectively "Books of Kings".
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.553,556,558, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.431, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.188, The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.5 p.957, and the New International Bible Commentary p.348 for more info.
Who wrote 1 and 2 Samuel?
The books themselves do not say. The Jewish Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 14b-15a claims that Samuel wrote the first 24 chapters 1 Samuel and Nathan and Gad wrote the rest. 1 Chronicles 29:29 mentions the chronicles of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. 2 Samuel details events after Samuel died (1 Samuel 25:1; 28:3), so obviously Samuel was not the writer. 1 Samuel 27:6 says that the city of Ziklag "has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day", so there was no hiding that this was written well after the events occurred. Separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah are mentioned in 1 Samuel 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Samuel 5:5; 11:11; 12:8; 19:42-43; 24:1,9, so these parts were after the split in 930 B.C. There is no mention of the exile of Israel in 722 B.C.
Jewish tradition claims Samuel wrote the first part, but it is not necessary that he did so. But if the writer of the first part was not Samuel, it was someone who knew Samuel well. Samuel started a school of the prophets, so it could have been someone from that school, or the priest, and good friend of David, Abiathar. Regardless though, they are called "Samuel" because they are about Samuel and his legacy.
1 and 2 Samuel have a different writing style than 1 and 2 Kings, so it is extremely unlikely a write of one would have been a writer of the other.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.553, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.431, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.191-192, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 1 p.11, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.292, the MacArthur Bible Commentary p.299, and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.295 for more info.
Here are Pre-Nicene writers who referred to 1 Samuel.
|
Philo the Jew (15/20 B.C. to 50 A.D.) |
Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258A.D.) |
|
Justin Martyr (c.138-165 A.D.) (allusion) |
Gregory Thaumaturgus (240-265 A.D.) |
|
Melito of Sadis (170-177/180 A.D.) |
Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) (allusion) |
|
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) |
Letter of Hymenaeus (c.268 A.D.) |
|
Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) |
Malchion (270 A.D.) (allusion) |
|
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) |
Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) |
|
Hippolytus (222-235/236 A.D.) |
Peter of Alexandria (306,285-311 A.D.) (allusion) |
|
Origen (225-254 A.D.) |
Lactantius (c.303-c.325 A.D.) |
|
Treatise against Novatian (c.248-258 A.D.) (allusion) |
|
The New Testament has three quotes from 2 Samuel, but none of 1 Samuel
Earliest manuscripts of 1 and 2 Samuel
|
Dead Sea Scroll 1Q7 (c.1 B.C.) |
Dead Sea Psalm scroll 11G5 (2 Sam 23:1-7a) |
|
Dead Sea Scroll 4Q51 (192-63 B.C.) |
Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) |
|
Dead Sea Scroll 4Q52 (325-275 B.C.) |
not in Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.) |
|
Dead Sea Scroll 4Q53 (100-75 B.C.) |
Alexandrinus (=A) c.450 A.D.) |
Overall the Dead scrolls preserver 276 out of 810 verses of 1 Samuel (34.1%)
1 and 2 Samuel are not as well preserved as other Old Testament books, so having the early Dead Sea Scrolls is very helpful.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.559, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 1 p.301, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.301 for more info.
Outlines of 1 Samuel
1-3 Eli and Samuel : Eli's sons vs. Eli's disciple
- 1-2:11 Hannah
- 2:12-31 Eli and his wicked sons
- 3 Samuel's call
4-6 Eli and the ark : respect God's holiness, or else
- 4 The ark misused and captured
- 5 The power of the ark
- 6 Hands off the holiness of God
7-15 Samuel and Saul : from a judge to a king
- 7 Samuel the Judge
- 8-10 The people demand a king and get Saul
- 11-12 Victories of Saul
- 13-15 Saul's decline and rejection
16-20 David serving Saul : how to be a future king
16:1-13 Samuel anoints David
16:14-18:30 David serves Saul
- 19-20 Friendship of David and Jonathan
21-31 David flees from Saul : wait on the Lord in perilous times
- 21-26 David on the run
- 27-30 David among the Philistines
- 31 Death of Saul
Here is another outline of 1 Samuel
1-9 Samuel until Saul
- 1-3 Samuel and Eli
- - 1 Samuel's birth
- - 2 Hannah's song and Eli's wicked sons
- - 3 God calls Samuel
- 4 Philistines capture the ark and Eli's death
- 5-7 God's providence and the Ark of the Covenant
- 8-9 The people demand and get a noble-looking man as their king
10-15 King Saul's reign until his rejection
- 10-11 Samuel anoints King Saul
- 13-15 Saul's successes and his even greater rejection
16-17 David's and Saul on good terms
- 16:1-13 Samuel misleads to anoint David
- 16:14-23 David ministers to Saul
- 17 David steps up to fight Goliath
18-26 Saul pursues David
- 18 David marries Michal; he has to join Saul's family
- 19-26 David on the run from Saul
27-31 David in Ziklag and Saul's final defeats
- 27-30 David safe in enemy cities
- 31 Death of Saul and his son Jonathan at Gilboa
Here is yet another outline of 1 Samuel
1-7 Samuel in Ramah
- 1-2:11 Hannah
- 2:12-31 Eli and his wicked sons
- 3 Samuel's call
- 4 The ark misused and captured
- 5 The power of the ark
- 6 Hands off the holiness of God
- 7 Samuel the Judge
8-15 Saul the rightful king
- 8-10 The people demand a king and get Saul
- 11-12 Victories of Saul
- 13-15 Saul's decline and rejection
16-31 David receiving and possessing the kingship
- 16-17 David's and Saul on good terms
- 18-20 Michal and Jonathan defend David
- 21-26 David on the run
- 27-30 David among the Philistines
- 31 Death of Saul
These three differing outlines make one question whether western-style outlines are the best representation for some ancient books. In this case it is as if there are three major themes: Samuel, Saul, and David. In the section for each theme the other themes might still be present in a minor way. There is not a sharp "point a, point b, point c", but rather extensive transitions between the points.
Some have seen similarities between 1 Samuel 15 - 2 Samuel 8 and the Hittite Apology of Hattusilis (written c.1267-1237 B.C.). Hattusilis III reigned over the Hittite kingdom 1275-1250 B.C. Here are the similarities.
|
1 Samuel 15 to 2 Sameul 8 |
Apology of Hattusilis |
|
David was the youngest son of Jesse |
Hattusilis III was a sickly younger son |
|
David anointed by Samuel and has the Lord's Spirit. |
Hattusilis III was dedicated to the goddess Ishtar and gains her favor |
|
David flees from the jealous king Saul |
Hattusilis III is persecuted from his nephew and king Urhi-Teshup |
|
God appointed David as the next king |
The goddess Ishtar appointed Hattusilis III as the king |
|
David was a military commander |
Hattusilis III was a military commander |
While there are similarities here, there are also similarities with other kings, in Persia, Egypt, and other places, where someone who was not a royal son and unlikely to become king, became king and was a good and honorable man (at least in the eyes of their friendly biographers).
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.191 for more info.
1 Samuel 1:1-5 – Samuel's birth and
Hannah's situation
1. In 1 Sam 1:1, what is significant about the name "Elkanah"?
2. In Sam 1:1, where was Samuel from?
3. In 1 Sam 1:1, was Samuel's father from the hill country of Ephraim, or was he a Levite as 1 Chr 6:16-30,33 says?
4. In 1 Sam 1:2, what do the names Hannah and Peninnah mean?
5. Does 1 Sam 1:2 endorse polygamy?
6. In 1 Sam 1:2; Gen 16:2; 25:1; 29:23-24;28-29, 2 Sam 20:3, etc., why did God permit polygamy (many wives) for Abraham, Jacob, and David and others?
7. In 1 Sam 1:3, what do the names Hophni and Phinehas mean?
8. In 1 Sam 1:4-5, why was giving out portions a cause of bitterness?
9. In 1 Sam 1:5, why did God deliberately shut the womb of Hannah, a godly woman?
10. In 1 Sam 1:5,19-20, did God shut the womb perhaps because He had nothing better to do? (A Muslim asserted this.)
1. In 1 Sam 1:6-7,16, how should you respond (if at all), when someone taunts or provokes you?
A:
1) _________________________________________________________________________
2) _________________________________________________________________________
3) _________________________________________________________________________
4) _________________________________________________________________________
2. In 1 Sam 1:6-7,13, why do people have rivalry?
3. In 1 Sam 1:8, why is Elkanah asking Hannah about her heart?
4. In 1 Sam 1:8,10, why would God allow one of his faithful children to become bitter?
5. In 1 Sam 1:11, should Hannah have bargained with God?
6. In 1 Sam 1:11, what would be the significance of no razor coming on her son's head?
7. In 1 Sam 1:12-14, why did Eli think Hannah was drunk?
8. In 1 Sam 1:15, what do we know about strong drink at that time?
9. In 1 Sam 1:16, 1 Sam 2:12, 1 Sam 10:27, 1 Sam 25:17,25, 1 Sam 30:22, and 1 Ki 21:10, who was Belial?
10. In 1 Sam 1:24-28, how hard would it have been for Hannah to give up her firstborn boy to the Lord?
11. In 1 Sam 1:24-28, 34-36, what is the shocking paradox here?
1 Samuel 2 - Serving God in the Midst of a Mess
1. In 1 Sam 2, what is interesting about the literary structure?
2. Why is 1 Sam 2:1-11 similar to Lk 1:46-55?
3. In 1 Sam 2:1-10, what are the main aspects of Hannah's prayer?
4. In 1 Sam 2:3-10, why did Hannah seem almost adversarial here against others?
5. In 1 Sam 2:8, does the earth rest on pillars?
6. In 1 Sam 2:10, why did Hannah say God would give strength to His king, since there was no king yet?
7. In 1 Sam 2:12-17, what exactly did Eli's sons Hophni and Phineas do wrong?
8. In 1 Sam 2:13, is there any supporting archaeological evidence of Samuel's sons using three-pronged forks?
9. In 1 Sam 2:27-29, how can believers today sin by loving their children more than God?
10. In 1 Sam 2:29, why did God rebuke Eli for the behavior of his sons?
11. In 1 Sam 2:29, how can Christian parents sin with lax parenting skills?
12. In 1 Sam 2:29, what were the future consequences of this judgment of Eli's sin?
13. In 1 Sam 2:35, who is the prophesied faithful priest here?
14. In 1 Sam 2:36, what is God saying here?
1 Samuel 3-4 – Speak Lord, for your servant is Listening
1. In 1 Sam 3:1-4:1, what is interesting about the literary structure?
A: 1 Samuel 3-4:1 uses a Hebrew literary device called a chiasm. Each topic is repeated in a symmetric fashion. Here is the analysis:
God spoke rarely then (3:1)
— Eli weakening with age (3:2)
— — God calls Samuel three times (3:3-9)
— — — God speaks through Samuel (3:10-15)
— — Eli calls for Samuel's report (3:16-18)
— Samuel grows up in the LORD (3:19a)
God speaks often through Samuel (3:19b-4:1)
2. In 1 Sam 3:4-10, how come Samuel did not immediately recognize the voice as from God?
3. In 1 Sam 3:13, did Eli not correct his sons, or did he correct them in 1 Sam 2:23-24?
4. In 1 Sam 3:15-21, why was Samuel reluctant to repeat what God said?
5. In 1 Sam 3:17, what is interesting about the literary structure?
6. In 1 Sam 3:18, why did Eli seem so nonchalant about the curse against his family?
7. In 1 Sam 4:1, what do we know about the Philistines and their idol Dagon?
8. In 1 Sam 4:3,10, what was the dire situation here?
9. In 1 Sam 4:4-6 should they have carried the ark into battle?
10. In 1 Sam 4:4-6, what are some ways that people might try to manipulate God?
11. In 1 Sam 4:8 what is strange about what the Philistines said?
12. In 1 Sam 4:11, is there any archaeological evidence that the Philistines captured the ark?
13. In 1 Sam 4:18, what was Eli's attitude towards his children, and towards God?
14. In 1 Sam 4:21-22, should she have named her son Ichabod, meaning "the glory has departed"?
1 Samuel 5-6 – When the Ark was Captured
1. In 1 Sam 5:1-10, what do we know about the Philistines and their five major cities of Ashdod, Gath, Ekron, Gaza, and Ashkelon?
2. In 1 Sam 5:6-12, what is so poetic about this passage?
3. In 1 Sam 5:12 and 1 Sam 6:5,17, what are hemorrhoids/emerods?
4. In 1 Sam 6:1-4, was the advice of the Philistine priests and diviners correct?
5. In 1 Sam 6:1-4, could idol priests give correct advice about what the true God desires?
6. In 1 Sam 6:4, why would the Philistine priests suggest five gold mice and five gold tumors?
7. In 1 Sam 6:6, how would the Philistines know of Pharaoh and the Egyptians hardening their hearts?
8. In 1 Sam 6:7-9, why did the Philistine priests and diviners suggest using to milk cows?
9. In 1 Sam 6:9, was the Philistines' method a good method to use?
10. In 1 Sam 6:9, were the Philistines right to think that it could have happened by chance?
11. In 1 Sam 6:19, why did God kill the Israelites of Beth-Shemesh?
12. In 1 Sam 6:19, does the Hebrew say 50,070, or 70?
13. In 1 Sam 6:21-7:2, why did they send the ark to Kiriath-Jearim instead of Shiloh?
1 Samuel 7-8 – Samuel tossing the baton to Saul
1. In 1 Sam 7:2, how long was the ark at Kiriath-Jearim?
2. In 1 Sam 7:3-4, why did Samuel tell the Israelites to put away the foreign gods among them?
3. In 1 Sam 7:5, do the future battles against the Philistines show that 1 Samuel was wrong to show that the Philistines were massively defeated under Samuel as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.274 says?
4. In 1 Sam 7:5-7,11 why did Samuel probably have them assemble at Mizpah?
5. In 1 Sam 7:6, why did Samuel pour out water here?
6. In 1 Sam 7:7-12 what is the difference between their asking for God's help here and their (unsuccessful) asking for help in 1 Sam 4:5-11?
7. In 1 Sam 7:13, did the Philistines no longer occupy the territory of Israel, or did they continue to fight later in Samuel?
8. In 1 Sam 7:14, how were all the cities from Ekron to Gath restored to Israel?
9. In 1 Sam 7:16, is this Gilgal different from the Gilgal Joshua went to, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.274 categorically states?
10. In 1 Sam 8:1, why did Samuel make his evil sons judges over Israel?
11. In 1 Sam 8:5-22, what is interesting about the literary structure?
A: Here is the analysis from The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.615:
The people to Samuel (8:5)
— Samuel to the Lord (8:6)
— — The Lord to Samuel (8:7-9)
— Samuel to the people (8:10-18)
— — The people to Samuel (8:19-20)
— Samuel to the Lord (8:21)
— — The Lord to Samuel (8:22a)
Samuel to the people (8:22b)
12. In 1 Sam 8:7-9, why did God dislike their asking for a king around 1051 B.C.?
13. In 1 Sam 8:11, why did God say the king would have chariots and horses, since Dt 17:16-17 says the king should not have chariots and horses?
14. In 1 Sam 8:11, when did kings of Israel have men run before the chariots?
1 Samuel 9-10 – What Saul was Like Before he was king
1. In 1 Sam 9:1 Saul's father was Kish, but how was Kish's father Abiel, when 1 Chr 8:33 says Ner was Kish's father?
2. In 1 Sam 9:12,18, how did Saul not recognize a famous person like Samuel?
3. In 1 Sam 9:7-9, why would people usually bring a gift to a man of God?
4. In 1 Sam 9:15-17, do you think God chose the best choice for king, or the kind of king people would want?
5. In 1 Sam 9:15-27, what are some examples in more recent times where power or riches corrupt?
6. In 1 Sam 9:15-17, do you think God often gives people what they want today?
7. In 1 Sam 9:21-22, why didn't Samuel answer Saul's question then?
8. In 1 Sam 10:1 did Samuel privately anoint Saul king, or was Saul publicly declared king in 1 Sam 10:17-24?
A:The same pattern occurred with both Saul and David becoming king.
|
|
Saul |
David |
|
private anointing |
1 Sam 10:1 |
1 Sam 16:13 |
|
filled with the Spirit |
1 Sam 10:5-12 |
1 Sam 16:13 |
|
Public proclamation |
1 Sam 10:19-24 |
1 Sam 16:13 |
|
God's spirit possibly leaving |
1 Sam 15:14 |
Ps 51:11 |
10. In 1 Sam 10:1-12:25, do we see anything in Saul's character that foreshadowed that he would later be oppressed by an evil spirit and want to murder David?
11. In 1 Sam 10:5; 18:6 what are these instruments?
12. In 1 Sam 10:11,12, why did Saul prophesy, since Saul later turned evil?
13. In 1 Sam 10:20-24, why was Saul hiding among the baggage / supplies?
14. In 1 Sam 10:27-11:1, do we have any other evidence on Nahash the Ammonite wanting to gouge out people's eyes?
1 Samuel 11-12 – Saul the young king
1. In 1 Sam 11:1-7, why might Saul have a special concern for Jabesh-Gilead?
2. In 1 Sam 11:3,10 should this word be "surrender", or "come out"?
3. In 1 Sam 11:5, why were the men of the town of Gibeah weeping when the messengers from Jabesh Gilead came?
4. In 1 Sam 11:8, where the numbers in the army too high, and was the division into Judah and Israel anachronistic, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.278 claims?
5. In 1 Sam 11:10, did the people of Jabesh Gilead trick the Ammonites?
6. In 1 Sam 11:12-15, was Saul right to not execute those who had spoken against Saul in 1 Sam 10:27?
7. In 1 Sam 12:3, what does this say about Samuel's life at the end?
8. In 1 Sam 12:3, how can a bribe close someone's eyes?
9. In 1 Sam 12:3-5, what is the key issue that Samuel missed?
10. In 1 Sam 12:11, who is Bedan?
11. In 1 Sam 12:13-15, what is God saying here about their choice of a king?
12. In 1 Sam 12:17-19, why would the people fear rain during the wheat harvest?
13. In 1 Sam 12:23, is it a sin not to pray for some one?
1 Samuel 13 – Saul failed his first test
1. In 1 Sam 13:1, when did Saul begin to reign and how long was he king?
2. In 1 Sam 13:2, does the phrase "in his tent" mean the Israelites were still nomadic?
3. In 1 Sam 13:5, how were there 30,000 chariots and only 6,000 charioteers?
4. In 1 Sam 13:8-10, why did Samuel delay past the appointed time, and what did this mean for Saul?
5. In 1 Sam 13:13, what did Saul lose here?
6. In 1 Sam 13:13, how was Saul rejected from his dynasty reigning for all time, since the throne was prophesied to Judah in Gen 49:10?
7. In 1 Sam 13:14, how could David be a man after God's own heart, since David later committed some very serious sins?
8. In 1 Sam 13:21 is a "pim" translated as two-thirds of a shekel?
9. In 1 Sam 13:22, why did the Israelite soldiers not have any swords or spears, since they had to have weapons to defeat the Ammonites back in 1 Sam 11:11?
1 Samuel 14 – Made-up rules to try to please God
1. In 1 Sam 14:3, who was Ahijah?
2. In 1 Sam 14:1 why did Jonathan decide to raid the Philistine outpost here?
3. In 1 Sam 14:1,3,18-20 when are times a believer might be waiting on guidance when they already know what to do?
4. In 1 Sam 14:11, why did the Philistines tell Jonathan and his armorer bearer to come?
5. In 1 Sam 14:15, how was there such great trembling?
6. In 1 Sam 14:20-21, what is an important point about the Philistines here?
7. In 1 Sam 14:24-25, why did Saul command the soldiers not to eat before they had victory?
8. In 1 Sam 14:24-25, why do religious people make arbitrary rules today, and what are some of those rules?
9. In 1 Sam 14:37-38, why did God not answer the priests here?
10. In 1 Sam 14:30, was Jonathan being disrespectful here, saying the command of his father the king was wrong?
11. In 1 Sam 14:34-35, why did Saul make an altar here?
12. In 1 Sam 14:32-34,43, why were all the Israelite soldiers not executed, since they ate meat with blood?
13. In 1 Sam 14:32-34,43, what other lessons can we learn for today?
14. In 1 Sam 14:39, why did Saul make a second foolish oath after the first?
1 Samuel 15 – God is Done with Casual Obedience
1. In 1 Sam 15:1-5, why did God tell Saul to destroy all the Amalekites?
2. In 1 Sam 15:2, what do we know about the Amalekites?
3. In 1 Sam 15:11,35, why did God repent that He made Saul king?
4. In 1 Sam 15:11, why was Samuel "grieved all night"?
5. In 1 Sam 15:19, why were God and Samuel angry that Saul kept the plunder?
6. In 1 Sam 15:22, why is obedience better than sacrifice?
7. In 1 Sam 15:23, how is arrogance like the evil of idolatry?
8. In 1 Sam 15:24-26, why did Saul ask for forgiveness, and why did God through Samuel not give it?
9. In 1 Sam 15:26, once Samuel told Saul that God rejected Saul as king, should Saul have stepped down as king?
10. In 1 Sam 15:27-30, what was the meaning of tearing Samuel's robe?
11. In 1 Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19, since God will not "repent", why did God repent in 1 Sam 15:11,35?
12. In 1 Sam 15:29; Num 23:19, why are these verses important in talking with Mormons?
13. In 1 Sam 15:35 how did Saul not see Samuel's face again, since Saul prophesied in Samuel's presence in 1 Samuel 19:24?
1. In 1 Sam 1:1, what is significant about the name "Elkanah"?
A: The name el qanah means "God creates". It apparently was not an unusual name; a seal was found with that name and the picture of an ibex (a kind of antelope). It is almost certainly not the same Elkanah though. This was also a name of a temple musician in 1 Chronicles 15:18,21.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.303 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.571,575 for more info.
2. In Sam 1:1, where was Samuel from?
A: The hill country was also known as "Ramah" (meaning the height), and Ramathaim" meant double-height or two heights. It was 15 miles north of Jerusalem barely in Ephraim and just north of Benjamin. Shiloh was 15-20 miles north. Eusebius of Caesarea says this was the later Arimathea. People could easily walk 20 miles in one day, including stopping to eat and rest.
Scholars disagree on whether this village was the same as Ramah in Joshua 18:21,25, because that was in Benjamin, and this was in the territory of Ephraim just north of the border with Benjamin. It is possible they were adjacent to each other.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.432-433, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.303, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.570, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.15-16 for more info.
3. In 1 Sam 1:1, was Samuel's father from the hill country of Ephraim, or was he a Levite as 1 Chr 6:16-30,33 says?
A: Both are correct. Two points to consider in the answer.
1. Elkanah was descended from Levi. The Levites did not have any region of their own, but they were interspersed among the other tribes.
2. Elkanah was a Levite who lived in the hill country belonging to the tribe of Ephraim barely north of the border with Benjamin.
This should not be a problem for most atheists, as even the skeptic, Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.269-270 gives basically the same answer.
However, there is another problem here. Samuel's ancestry was from Levi, but not from Aaron, and the priests were supposed to be from Aaron. Either Samuel was considered as "adopted" by Eli, it was by Samuel's prophetic calling, or things were irregular here.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.570, When Critics Ask p.155, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.220, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.433, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.296, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.294, and the New International Bible Commentary p.350, 354, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.24,45, and The NIV Study Bible p.375 for the same answer.
4. In 1 Sam 1:2, what do the names Hannah and Peninnah mean?
A: "Hannah", of which "Anna" is a variant, means "grace".
We are not certain about the name Peninnah, but it is something precious. It could mean "ruby", "pearl", or "coral". There is a similar Arabic word that means a woman with beautiful hair.
In Hebrew culture it is very important to have descendants. Since Hannah was fertile, Elkanah likely married Peninnah later in order to have children by her.
No other common man in Samuel and Kings is mentioned as having more than one wife; so Elkanah was likely fairly well off.
See the MacArthur Bible Commentary p.303, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.571,576, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.294 for more info.
5. Does 1 Sam 1:2 endorse polygamy?
Similarly God allowed only allowed divorce in the Old Testament because people's hearts were hard according to Jesus in Matthew 19:7-9. So God allowing something does not necessarily mean God endorsed it.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.303, the New International Bible Commentary p.354, and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.297 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 1:2; Gen 16:2; 25:1; 29:23-24;28-29, 2 Sam 20:3, etc., why did God permit polygamy (many wives) for Abraham, Jacob, and David and others?
A: Five points to consider in the answer.
1. Polygamy was never God's perfect will, as implied when He made Adam and Eve. He said the two (not many) shall become one flesh.
2. God permitted many things in the Old Testament, such as divorce (Matthew 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12), being that their hearts were hard.
3. Some things, such as polygamy and rash vows, God left for people to figure out were not good.
4. Even in Old Testament times, polygamy was not necessarily the norm. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.223 points out that there were only fifteen examples of polygamy in the Old Testament until Solomon's time. There were only four or five after that time.
5. Ever since the time of Paul, and today, godly elders and deacons should not have more than one wife (1 Tim 3:2,12; Titus 1:6).
7. In 1 Sam 1:3, what do the names Hophni and Phinehas mean?
A: Curiously these are Egyptian names, not Hebrew names. Hophni means "tadpole", and Phinehas means "Nubian", or a person who liked in modern Sudan. Why Eli and his wife chose to name their sons with Egyptian names is not known. Perhaps one was named after Phinehas, the godly grandson of Aaron in Numbers 25:7-8.
See the MacArthur Bible Commentary p.303 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 1:4-5, why was giving out portions a cause of bitterness?
A: Eli gave Hannah twice as much as Peninnah as a sign that she was beloved by him. However, the amount of meat given to Peninnah would be much greater than Hannah including all the children by here. So each wife got less than the other wife, depending on how you counted.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.354 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 1:5, why did God deliberately shut the womb of Hannah, a godly woman?
A: Regardless of whether God deliberately shut her womb, or merely allowed a natural condition to continue, God can also use disappointing things in our life for His glory. When Hannah gave her childless condition to God in prayer, God gave her Samuel, who had such a significant impact on the whole nation. Where would David be without Samuel? Yet where would Samuel be without Hannah and her prayers?
10. In 1 Sam 1:5,19-20, did God shut the womb perhaps because He had nothing better to do? (A Muslim asserted this.)
A: No. Sometimes God shuts a womb, or frustrates a purpose, in order to achieve a greater purpose. This attitude is disrespectful of God.
I am somewhat surprised a Muslim would give this argument, because this same type of argument was applied in Mohammed's time to Mohammed. He had no surviving sons and in fact no children survived to adulthood except his daughter Fatima. According to al-Tabari, Mohammed married al-Shanba bint ‘Amr al-Ghifariyyah; her people were allies of the banu Qurayza. When Ibrahim died, she said that if he were a true prophet his son would not have died. Mohammed divorced her before consummating his marriage with her. al-Tabari vol.9 p.136. Now Christians do not give Mohammed's inability to have more children has any reason to say he was a false prophet.
But by the Muslim accusing the God of the Bible of shutting Hannah's womb as a sign that the Bible-God was bad or had nothing better to do, this is like saying Allah killed Mohammed's only son because he had nothing better to do.
1. In 1 Sam 1:6-7,16, how should you respond (if at all), when someone taunts or provokes you?
A: The Hebrew literally says that Peninnah "thundered" at Hannah, and Hannah said that God would thunder at her in 1 Samuel 2:11. Provocation, mocking, and stinging ridicule can seem like thunder, even if the other person is not talking loudly. Four points in the answer.
1) As Christians we have to ask ourselves "is this what God wants us to say?" if we are about to taunt or provoke someone. That being said, sometimes even Christians still sin and taunt or provoke others.
2) The Bible commands us never to seek revenge. We are to love our neighbors, even neighbors that are not easy to love. But God avenges and judges. It is interesting that the common title of God "Lord of hosts" can mean both Lord of everything and Lord of armies. But that is not the word used here. The word here can mean only "Lord of armies".
3) You don't want to respond in such a visible way that you encourage them to do it more. Ask them to stop. If that does not work, then perhaps there is someone else, such as a teacher at school or HR (Human Resources) at the workplace, that can tell them to stop. Don't react, but consider your response.
4) While the previous two points are easy to say, it is hard to do with resentment or bitterness that is growing inside of you. Turn it over to God, and remember who you belong to. Pleasing Him is all that counts. We should be willing to suffer, not just physical persecution, but reproach and shame for Jesus' sake.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.303 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.581 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 1:6-7,13, why do people have rivalry?
A: Rivalry between high schools, colleges, or sports teams is usually not serious (unless people get beat up). However, it teaches people, even if not in a serious way, to have rivalry, and believers are to have no rivalry. Besides Peninnah and Hannah, there was rivalry with Hagar and Sarah in Genesis 16:4; 21:9, Leah and Rachel in Genesis 30:1-24, Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:8, Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 37:4,11, Aaron and Miriam vs. Moses in Numbers 12:1-8, Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16:1-40, Ephraimites and Gideon in Judges 8:1-3, and Diotrephes in 3 John 9-10. In fact, much of human history after the Bible can be considered just the fruit of envy and rivalry (at least after you take out the power, selfishness, lust, and fear). It was possibly because of envy that Jesus' family and people in His hometown did not accept Him while He walked on this earth.
Christians are not to have rivalry or envy, as Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 13:4; 2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20-21,26; 1 Timothy 6:4; Titus 3:3; 1 Peter 2:1 teach. Nevertheless, non-believers often have rivalry and envy, and even believers, forgetting they were washed in Christ's blood and are new creations now, can even have that too. Even Jesus' own disciples had some rivalry against each other.
Paraphrasing what one famous CEO said, it is not enough for our company to succeed; the others must fail. Does this attitude self-destructive or does it work? It is self-destructive on the inside, but in the world's eyes it often works. The person who said this is currently richer than Elon Musk. But Christians must follow the way of God, and not turn aside to the way of the world.
One antidote to envy and rivalry is Philippians 2:3-4. When someone else succeeds, are you genuinely happy for them?
3. In 1 Sam 1:8, why is Elkanah asking Hannah about her heart?
A: It is often translated as "why is your heart sad", or "why are you unhappy"? Or it could mean "why is your heart angry", or "why are you bitter or resentful". Either way, Elkanah noticed something was not right with Hannah and he wanted to bring that out in the open.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.303 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.572 for more info.
4. In 1 Sam 1:8,10, why would God allow one of his faithful children to become bitter?
A: They themselves made that choice; God does not make anyone bitter. Rather bitterness is a chosen attitude to respond to bad situations. Hannah is a study of faith in the midst of heartbreak, and reliance on God through discouragement, mixed with some resentment.
Two other people who the Bible says were bitter for a time for Naomi and Hezekiah. Provers 4:23 commands us to guard our heart, because it is the wellspring of life.
5. In 1 Sam 1:11, should Hannah have bargained with God?
When Hannah gave up Samuel, she could still visit him, and she made clothes for him every year as 1 Samuel 2:19 says. There were annual feasts at Shiloh three times a year. When Hannah made this vow, her husband could nullify her vow according to Numbers 30:6-15. However, Elkanah apparently agreed with her because he did not.
Levities such as Samuel were required to serve at the sanctuary as part of a rotation from the twenty-fifth year to their fiftieth year (Number 8:24-25), but Samuel would be serving his entire life.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.201 and the MacArthur Bible Commentary p.304 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 1:11, what would be the significance of no razor coming on her son's head?
A: This means he would be a Nazirite from birth. Read Numbers 6:1-14 for the regulations concerning Nazirites.
7. In 1 Sam 1:12-14, why did Eli think Hannah was drunk?
A: Hannah was moving her mouth, but no audible words were coming out. A drunk might do this, but in this case Hannah was praying to God. Rather than pouring herself too many drinks, Hannah was pouring out her heart to God.
It might have been the first time Eli saw someone come to the altar who appeared to be drunk. It is a sad commentary on the spiritual life of that time, that Eli was assuming a person doing this was drunk before he would consider that she was wrestling in prayer.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.573 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 1:15, what do we know about strong drink at that time?
A: The Hebrew word for strong drink, sekar, comes from the earlier Akkadian word sikaru. It most commonly meant beer, though it could be made out of anything that ferments except grapes, for which the word "wine" is used. An ancient Sumerian recipe for how to make beer was uncovered and a beer company on a whim made a special batch of beer following that recipe. People who tried it said it tasted really bad.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.576 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 1:16, 1 Sam 2:12, 1 Sam 10:27, 1 Sam 25:17,25, 1 Sam 30:22, and 1 Ki 21:10, who was Belial?
A: This was an idiom, similar to Jesus calling a person a son of the devil. While one could read the meaning as reprobate, probably this simply means that at that time they were doers of wickedness. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.214 says that this term could either mean a son of wickedness, or else a useless good-for-nothing. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.204 also says Belial means literally "not profitable", as in worthless or empty.
A: Hannah had already made her decision. Samuel was the proof to end the taunts of Peninnah. After God gave her the living proof that she was loved and accepted by God, now she essentially has to give him up for adoption to Eli. At that moment she would not know if she would ever be able to have another child or not. 1 Samuel 1:20 says that Eli regularly prayed that Elkanah and Hannah would have more children, and 1 Samuel 2:21 tells us God later gave Hannah three sons and two daughters.
Also, when Hannah gave up Samuel to Eli, just how good a father was he? Judging by the character the Eli built into his sons, Eli was not very good. what kind of older adopted brothers would he have? – Hophni and Phinehas. Yet God had Hannah give up Samuel over to him, despite any misgivings Hannah might have later had.
Samuel did not learn only good things from Eli though. When he was old, Samuel decided to have his two sons succeed him, despite the fact that they did not walk in a godly way, but turned aside to bribes and dishonest gain in 1 Samuel 8:1-3.
11. In 1 Sam 1:24-28, 34-36, what is the shocking paradox here?
A: The paradox that is shocking, at least for some, is that God's blessing is due to God's grace, not our own worthiness. Eli, a genuine servant of God who would be heavily disciplined by God for his failure to put in the effort to raise his sons, was blessing Hannah that she would have even more children. And God heard Eli's prayer. Not only did God hear it, but God gave Hannah many children.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.194 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.434 for more info.
1 Samuel 2 - Serving God in the Midst of a Mess – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 2, what is interesting about the literary structure?
A: 1 Samuel 2 uses a beautiful Hebrew literary device called a chiasm. Each topic is repeated in a symmetric fashion. Here is the analysis:
Hannah's song, citing the Lord's anointed (2:1-10)
— Samuel ministers before the Lord (2:11)
— — The sins of Eli's sons (2:12-17)
— Samuel ministers before the Lord (2:18-19)
— — — — Eli blesses the parents (2:20-21a)
— Samuel grows in the Lord's presence (23:21b)
— — The sins of Eli's sons (2:22-25)
— Samuel grows in the Lord's presence (2:26)
The oracle of the man of God, citing the Lord's anointed (2:27-36)
Other chiasms in the 1 Samuel are in 3:17; 3:1-4:1; 8:5-22, and 18:20-26. Other chiasms in 2 Samuel are 1:19-27; 5:17-8:18; and 23:1-7. Isaiah was also fond of chiasms. The chiasms in Isaiah include Isaiah 15:1-14; 21:1-10; 22:8-11; 22:12-14; 23:1-14; 24:1-13; 26:1-21; 27:1-13; 29:9-14; 32:1-5; 37:14-20; 38:1-8; 38:10-20; 41:17-20; 42:1-4; 42:13-17; 43:1-7; 43:8-13; 43:22-24; 43:25-44:5; 44:6-8; 48:17-22; 51:1-3; 51:7-8; 51:13-15; 55:1-13; 56:9-12; 59:14-20; 61:5-9; 63:15-64:12; 65:1-66:24; 65:17-18b; 65:18c-20; 66:5-14; 66:18-24.
Another example is Isaiah 22:1-14. In this case, within this chiasm are two other chiasms: 22:8-11 and 22:12-14.
Jeremiah 9:1-11; 20:24-18; Zechariah 6:9-15 are also chiasms. Ezekiel 26:3-14 has chiastic structure, though it is not a perfect chiasm.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.588 for more info.
2. Why is 1 Sam 2:1-11 similar to Lk 1:46-55?
A: While there are great differences between the two, there are some similar sentiments. Perhaps this is because both women lived in uncertain times, lived under foreign oppression, and were overjoyed at having their first child. In their own ways, they both knew their child was special to the Lord.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.579 for more info.
3. In 1 Sam 2:1-10, what are the main aspects of Hannah's prayer?
A: Hannah's prayer here is all the more interesting because of the contrast with her prayer in 1 Samuel 1:9-13. Her prayer is one of vindication against her foes. If Hannah had made this prayer into a song, it is not certain that Peninnah would have enjoyed listening to it. Hopefully people don't compose songs about you like that!
This is a prayer or song of contrasts. Mighty vs. the weak, full vs. hungry, barren vs. fertile, dead vs. alive, sick vs. well, poor vs. rich, and humbled vs. exalted.
It is very likely that Mary's prayer of praise in Luke 1:46-55, called the Magnificat, was influenced by her being familiar with Hannah's song.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.579-580, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.298, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.294-295, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.305, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.434, and the New International Bible Commentary p.355 for more info.
4. In 1 Sam 2:3-10, why did Hannah seem almost adversarial here against others?
A: Her prayer was an apt sign of those times. Many of the Israelites lived under Philistine oppression. Not only was there warfare to worry about, but living under an oppressor would mean tribute, and less money to fend off starvation.
It might have seemed confusing that since the Israelites were God's people, why would God allow the Philistines to have mastery over them.
5. In 1 Sam 2:8, does the earth rest on pillars?
A: No, Hannah in her prayer did not exactly say that. Three points to consider in the answer.
In a prayer, even if one of God's worshippers says something scientifically wrong, that is OK. If the Bible accurately records what Hannah prayed, that is OK too.
However, Hannah did not use the common Hebrew word for "pillar" (ammud). Here the word is matsuwq, which Strong's Concordance says means something narrow, such as a column or a hilltop. Thus, this word is broader than just the word "column". The NIV translates this word as "foundation". Hannah would not know the earth was held together by gravity and held by the sun's by gravity in its orbit around the sun. But Hannah knew that somehow God was keeping the earth firm and stable.
For that matter, Job in Job 26:7 says the earth rests on nothing.
See Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.79-80 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 2:10, why did Hannah say God would give strength to His king, since there was no king yet?
A: First what is most likely not the answer, and then the answer.
Probably not the answer: God is a king, and the Father will give strength to Jesus our King. While the Hebrew word here, melek, simply means king, the last word in verse 10, anointed, masiah, is the Hebrew word for Messiah. Hannah's prayer, about God being the Rock, and deliverance, is similar to Mary's prayer in Luke 1.
The answer: Israel already knew they were going to get a king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and 28:36. Between Joshua and Samuel the Israelites had been oppressed by the King of Aram, Eglon King of Moab (a smaller people), the Philistines, Jabin king of Hazor, the Midianites, The Philistines plus the Ammonites, and the Philistines again. Perhaps now they would get a king. Samuel was anointed, but as a prophet, not a king. But Hannah probably had no idea how much God would use her son, in a pivotal way, in the history of Israel.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.434 and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.194 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 2:12-17, what exactly did Eli's sons Hophni and Phineas do wrong?
A: They were there to help with offering the sacrifices, as they should be. But there are two complementary answers: their actions and their heart.
At one level, four wrong actions are explicitly listed.
1 Samuel 2:13-14 Robbery. They took more than they were supposed to take; the worshipers would have less to eat themselves.
1 Samuel 2:15 Altered God's law. They changed the requirements of what God commanded in Leviticus 7:31f. Rather than cooked meat without the fat, they demanded raw meat with the fat. The fat would add more flavor. Also, in many cultures, where food is scarce, people will eat solid fat as a delicacy. This is sort of like eating bacon with all the fat still on it.
1 Samuel 2:16-17 Bullying. If the worshippers would not consent to offering in a way contrary to what God commanded, they would take the meat by force.
1 Samuel 2:22 Immorality. They slept with the doorkeeper women. (Doorkeeper women are mentioned in Exodus 38:8.)
But behind these actions were five evil attitudes
Using others. They would of the other people, god's worshippers, as "prey" to be taken advantage of. The question "would you like it if that was done to you" was the farthest thing from their minds.
Despising God's commands and "ownership" of what is not theirs to own. They could modify God's commands as they wished, as if it were "their" altar and not God's. Today, if a pastor, priest, or bishop talks about "my church" rather than Christ's church of which he is an overseer, then watch out. Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu also changed God's commands for sacrifice at their whim, and God killed them in Leviticus 10:1-3.
Might makes right. They thought it acceptable to take from others whatever they had the power to take.
Sexual opportunities. Women around them were opportunities to fulfill their desires, rather than living their life as God desire.
Elderly Eli warned them, but that is all he did. He only warned them after he heard the reports from others, since apparently he did not put much time in watching them before this. Besides this simple warning, he basically did nothing. So God not only punished Eli's beloved children, but God punished Eli too. He was still God's child and going to heaven, but his death, and essentially the "death" of his legacy were serious punishments.
8. In 1 Sam 2:13, is there any supporting archaeological evidence of Samuel's sons using three-pronged forks?
A: While there is no archaeological evidence of the individuals involved, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.585 mentions that three-pronged forks for use in sacrifices have been excavated at Gezer.
9. In 1 Sam 2:27-29, how can believers today sin by loving their children more than God?
A: Anything, even a good thing, that you love more than God can become an idol, - to you. It is very sad, but a warning to us, that a faithful believer of God could still have his family disintegrate because of his sin of caring for his family more than God. Make sure you don't care about your children's immediate happiness and financial success more than their godliness.
For your kids' sake, make sure they see that your love for God is more important to you than them, and your love for your spouse is more central to your life than them. Kids need to know that they are loved, liked, and accepted, but also they are not the center of the universe, or even your universe.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.586, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.194, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.295-296 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.307 for more info.
10. In 1 Sam 2:29, why did God rebuke Eli for the behavior of his sons?
A: It was they, not Eli that committed those sins, yet God held Eli responsible for tolerating the sins of his adult sons. Eli knew of these things, and reasoned with them to correct their error in 1 Samuel 2:22-26. However, sometimes there is a place for rebuke, and there is a place for consequences. Eli should have removed them from their duties, and perhaps he would have for anybody else, but they were his sons. It is interesting that God did not directly rebuke Hophni and Phinehas; perhaps they were too hardened. But in 1 Samuel 2:29 God directly rebuked Eli because Eli was showing contempt for God's sacrifices by tolerating his sons doing that.
Correction is informing somebody of what they are doing wrong, when they are ignorant that they are doing so. Rebuke is exhorting somebody to do the right thing they already know to do. Eli's words seemed like mild correction, not severe rebuke. In addition, Eli should have kicked them out of serving at the Tabernacle immediately.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.435 for more info.
11. In 1 Sam 2:29, how can Christian parents sin with lax parenting skills?
A: Sometimes a person can teach disciples or those under him the best, without making mistakes, and they still turn out bad; look and Jesus and Judas, and Paul and Demas. Sometimes a parent or leader can make an unintentional mistake, with bad consequences. But sometimes you can know the right thing to do, form reading the Bible, and yet refuse to do it; and that is sin as James 4:17 says.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.37 for more info.
12. In 1 Sam 2:29, what were the future consequences of this judgment of Eli's sin?
A: Immediate consequences were that Hophni and Phinehas would die in battle very soon and Eli would die when he heard that the ark was captured. Longer-term, the priestly descendants of Eli, except Abiathar, would all be killed by King Saul in 1 Samuel 22:16-20. 130 years after this prophecy Abiathar himself would be deposed by Kind David after he sided with Adonijah against Solomon. Eli was a descendant of Ithamar, son of Aaron, and no more of Ithamar's descendants would be priests. Instead the priests after this would come from the line of Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, son of Aaron.
13. In 1 Sam 2:35, who is the prophesied faithful priest here?
A: It cannot refer to Samuel here, because it would be a faithful priest and his enduring house, and Samuel's sons were not good either. Christ was a faithful High Priest, but it does not refer to Christ, because Christ did not have a "house" (i.e. descendants) of priests. This refers to the high priestly line of Ithamar through Eli being discontinued, and the high priests coming from the line of Eleazar through Zadok in Solomon's time in 1 Kings 1:7,8; 2:26,27,35.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.307 for more info.
14. In 1 Sam 2:36, what is God saying here?
A: As Eli's sons took the office of priest for granted, their descendants would be begging to be allowed to serve as priests in order to get food for their families.
1 Samuel 3-4 – Speak Lord, for your servant is Listening – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 3:1-4:1, what is interesting about the literary structure?
A: 1 Samuel 3-4:1 uses a Hebrew literary device called a chiasm. Each topic is repeated in a symmetric fashion. Here is the analysis:
God spoke rarely then (3:1)
— Eli weakening with age (3:2)
— — God calls Samuel three times (3:3-9)
— — — God speaks through Samuel (3:10-15)
— — Eli calls for Samuel's report (3:16-18)
— Samuel grows up in the LORD (3:19a)
God speaks often through Samuel (3:19b-4:1)
Other chiasms in the 1 Samuel are in 2, 3:17; 8:5-22, and 18:20-26.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.592 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 3:4-10, how come Samuel did not immediately recognize the voice as from God?
A: Apparently this was the first time Samuel had directly heard the voice of God, and he was unsure about this. God chose to use Eli's experience to educate Samuel.
It is interesting that Eli was so close to God in some ways, and yet so far away from God's will in other ways, such as the discipline of his own sons. FYI, the phrases "the lamp of God had not yet gone out" in 1 Samuel 3:3 means that Eli was still alive and in his right mind.
3. In 1 Sam 3:13, did Eli not correct his sons, or did he correct them in 1 Sam 2:23-24?
A: Eli spoke to his sons in a mild way in 1 Samuel 2:23-40. He did not kick his sons out of the Temple service, and his manner of speaking indicated that if they did not change, there would be no consequences from him. Of course, there were consequences from God later.
According to the Mosaic Law, the two sons should have been stoned to death for committing adultery.
See When Critics Ask p.157 for more info.
4. In 1 Sam 3:15-21, why was Samuel reluctant to repeat what God said?
A: Samuel had good relations with Eli, and Samuel knew that Eli would not like the message. Samuel was wrong to not want to proclaim the message to Eli that God told him to proclaim, but fortunately Eli told Samuel to do what was right.
There is a lesson for us today. God might want us to share things that we know people will not want to hear. Just like Samuel, we need to decide whether we are going to share what God wants us to share or be quiet when God wants us to speak. It is possible that when we share some things with our friends, that after that some of them won't want to be our friends anymore. Are we willing to risk that? Let me ask a question another way; do we really love them? Do we love the friendship more than the friend, or the friend more than the friendship?
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.296 and the New International Bible Commentary p.355-356 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 3:17, what is interesting about the literary structure?
A: 1 Samuel 3:17 uses a Hebrew literary device called a chiasm. In addition, it is within a larger chiasm in 1 Samuel 3:1-4:1. Here is the analysis of 1 Samuel 3:17 (NKJV): And he said,
What is the word that the LORD spoke to you?
— Please do not hide it from me.
— — God do so to you, and more also,
— If you hide anything from me
of all the things that He said to you."
Other chiasms in the 1 Samuel are in 2, 3:1-4:1; 8:5-22, and 18:20-26. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.592 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 3:18, why did Eli seem so nonchalant about the curse against his family?
A: Eli's attitude was an interesting mix of truth and irresponsible error.
Truth: Eli knew that God's revealed will would not be changed here. His sons would not change, and Eli knew God's way was the best way, and that he was not one to question God.
Error: Eli seemed apathetic and almost fatalistic about the destruction of his own children. Eli did not fall over in his chair when he heard that his two sons were killed. Perhaps Eli had already written them off. But Eli fell over and died when he heard that the ark was captured.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.598 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 4:1, what do we know about the Philistines and their idol Dagon?
A: The name Palestine was apparently derived from the Philistines, also called PSRT. Dagon was the chief god of the Philistines, or the Sea peoples. Some Philistines migrated to Philistia from Mediterranean Islands, most likely including Crete, around 2000 B.C., and many more came around 1200 B.C., after the fought (and lost0 a huge naval battle with the Egyptians.
Baal was said to be the son of Dagon in the Ugaritic religion. The Babylonians as well as the Philistines worshipped Dagon. Dagon was worshipped in Canaan prior to both the Israelites and Philistines, and as late as 147 B.C.. It used to be thought that Dagon was a fish-God, from the word dag for fish, but now scholars believe he was a grain god, from dagan, for grain.
When the Philistines put their battle trophy, the holy ark of the covenant, in front of Dagon as an offering, God was offended by what the Philistines did.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.601-602, Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.704, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.436-437, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.310, and the New International Bible Commentary p.356,357 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 4:3,10, what was the dire situation here?
A: In the first battle, without the ark, 4,000 Israelites died. This means that next time they tried to defeat the Philistines there would be 4,000 less men. So they tried with the ark, carried by two evil men, and with God's ark, plus evil men, 30,000 Israelites died. If there were about 600,000 total, including elderly men and young boys, only about half of them would be able to fight. So losing 30,000 men is like losing 10% of your total population. Just how many more battles could they fight where they lose 10% of their entire population?
Because of the wickedness of Eli and his sons, people Eli loved, in this case the entire nation suffered.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.297 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 4:4-6 should they have carried the ark into battle?
A: God never told them to move the ark to the battlefield. They did so in Numbers 10:35 and Joshua 6:6 and it worked well there. Aphek was only 20/25 miles west of Shiloh, so they did not have to carry the ark that far. Here the people reasoned that a) God would be with them this time if they brought the ark, and b) God would never let the humiliation happen of letting the ark be captured. Without an inward repentance to follow God, the people were wrong. It was not that carrying the ark was wrong, but that unrepentant people were doing to try to force God to give them victory. However, God was more concerned with the holiness of His people than their care of the ark.
Today, sometimes people can be more concerned with the cities, buildings, religious objects, and organizations than with the holiness of the people. God's view should be our view.
Twenty years after this, after the Israelites had defeated the Philistines, Samuel set up a stone, called Ebenezer, at Mizpah in Benjamin, very near here in 1 Samuel 7:12.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.436, the New International Bible Commentary p.356, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.52,53, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.195-196 for more info.
10. In 1 Sam 4:4-6, what are some ways that people might try to manipulate God?
A: It is fine to ask God to do something, and it is good to have faith in God acting. But to do something in such a way as to try to manipulate or compel God to act the way you want is testing God.
Second, we should not "misuse" God's glory or the name of God to be successful in something.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.297 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.309 for more info.
11. In 1 Sam 4:8 what is strange about what the Philistines said?
A: They were afraid of the Israelite God, except for one thing. English translations follow the Hebrew well, mentioning the Israelites' "mighty gods" in the plural. On one hand it was common knowledge what happened to the Egyptians. On the other hand, the Philistines were not even told enough to know that the Israelites had only one God, not multiple.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.54 for more info.
12. In 1 Sam 4:11, is there any archaeological evidence that the Philistines captured the ark?
A: Yes. According to The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.596 in an iron-age grain silo in Izbet Sarteh, a broken piece of pottery was found containing five lines. According to William H. Shea, the first four lines read "Unto the field we came, (unto) Aphek from Shiloh. The Kittim took (it [the Ark of the Covenant] and) came to Azor, (to) Dagon lord of Ashdod, (and to) Gath. (It returned to) Kiriath Jearim. The companion of the foot soldiers, Hophni, came to tell the elders, ‘A horse has come (and) upon (it was my) brother for us to bury'" There is apparently some uncertainty about the reading, though. The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.596 gives the source references for further study.
See Andrews University Seminary Studies 28, 1 [1990]: 62, quoted in The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.596, and https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1938&context=auss
13. In 1 Sam 4:18, what was Eli's attitude towards his children, and towards God?
A: Eli was very concerned about the honor and glory of God, - except where his kids were concerned. Eli was too permissive towards his children. Even though he would have likely known what his two sons were doing, he chose to ignore it. Perhaps he hoped that them being in the service of God would be self-correcting. But he was wrong. He should have taken action, and at the very least, stopped them from serving while their hearts were that way. But besides that blemish, Eli held God in honor. The Hebrew word chabad can mean "heavy glory". Does God have weight in your life? For despite Eli's shortcomings, God's glory had weight in his life.
14. In 1 Sam 4:21-22, should she have named her son Ichabod, meaning "the glory has departed"?
A: Don't name any of your sons this. This was an ominous word, also implying the glory had gone into exile. She respected God's glory, but it looked like God had taken His glory away and abandoned Israel. As she was dying, she was lamenting the fact that the symbol of God's glory was gone, into idolatrous hands. Whether she did this out of respect for God, or bitterness at what God allowed to happen to His people in general and her husband in particular scripture does not say.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.436, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.310, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.300, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.196, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.598-599, and the New International Bible Commentary p.356-357 for more info.
1 Samuel 5-6 – When the Ark was Captured – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 5:1-10, what do we know about the Philistines and their five major cities of Ashdod, Gath, Ekron, Gaza, and Ashkelon?
A: The Philistines were the still formidable remnants of a powerful and sophisticated sea peoples from more ancient times. Archaeology tells us the Philistines were skilled at smelting iron and using chariots in warfare. As all or part of the "Sea Peoples", they were defeated in a naval battle off of the coast of Egypt about 1190 B.C. They might have been the same people who destroyed the Hittite capital of Khattushah. The Egyptians called them the "PRST", and the Assyrians called them the Pilisti and Palastu.
Ashdod was about 33/35 miles west of Jerusalem and three miles east of the Mediterranean Sea. Gath was 10/12 miles east-southeast of Ashdod. Ekron was 6 miles due north of Gath. The two other major cities were Ashkelon and Gaza. Another Philistine city, Ziklag, was not as prominent.
An interesting piece of trivia is that while dogs were often not thought of very highly in other Mideast cultures, the Biblical Archaeology Review Jan./Feb. 1991 p.26 reports that at Ashkelon the Phoenicians had a dog cemetery with 220 burials.
We are not aware of any warfare of the Philistines among themselves. They had many powerful warriors, and after defeating them, David enlisted some of their soldiers as his elite guard.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.271 has an insightful comment that the Philistines were "… the most technologically advanced, best organized, and hence most dangerous of the early enemies of Israel."
See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1332-1335 for an extensive article on the Philistines. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.600, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.310, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.196 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 5:6-12, what is so poetic about this passage?
A: This is the only in this place that the writer introduces the term "hand of the Lord". Often the head and hands of dead enemies were cut off. But here it was Dagon's statue. Dagon's broken-off head and hands showed there was no wisdom nor power in the idol. The idol was helpless, in contrast to the Israelites now being able to see the hand of the Lord.
This is also the reason the custom started of not stepping on the threshold. This was done to honor the idol Dagon after this. God was incensed at people honoring Dagon in Zephaniah 1:9
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.600, the New International Bible Commentary p.357, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.300, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.311, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.437, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.297, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.196 for more info.
3. In 1 Sam 5:12 and 1 Sam 6:5,17, what are hemorrhoids/emerods?
4. In 1 Sam 6:1-4, was the advice of the Philistine priests and diviners correct?
A: It was not necessarily correct because they understood all about the True God. However, it was correct, as God "made it correct". Given their imperfect knowledge of God, the Lord accepted their sacrifice and turned the plague away from them.
5. In 1 Sam 6:1-4, could idol priests give correct advice about what the true God desires?
A: In general, no. But certainly, they could get a few things correct. Ancient people had the idea that they should not approach a deity empty-handed, and the Old Testament has a similar principle.
6. In 1 Sam 6:4, why would the Philistine priests suggest five gold mice and five gold tumors?
A: First of all, God never commanded that we make pictures, images, or statues of anything we were delivered from. Can you imagine a church full of statues of arms, cancer tumors, etc.? – I can't either.
Nevertheless, this would not be so unusual an idea among pagans in ancient times. A person who survived a shipwreck would present a table of a shipwreck to Neptune (god of the sea) or Isis. Gladiators would offer weapons. Free slaves would offer their chains. According to the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.63 this is documented in Scholia ad Aristophanes Acharnians. 243 and Georg Benedict Winer's Real-Wörterbuch, ii. p.255. The latter is available on the Internet archive at https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_hmoPAAAAQAAJ/page/n9/mode/2up.
Actually though, in the Bible in Numbers 21:4 where people were being bitten by poisonous snakes, and God told them to make a bronze snake and look to it.
See also the Believer's Bible Commentary p.301 and the New International Bible Commentary p.357 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 6:6, how would the Philistines know of Pharaoh and the Egyptians hardening their hearts?
A: Something as devastating as that would be remembered for at least a few centuries by people who were close by. A second reason is that the Philistines lived next to the Israelites, who would probably tell them. After seeing plague coming from the ark, the Philistines certainly did not want something similar to happen to them.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.64, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.312, and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.601 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 6:7-9, why did the Philistine priests and diviners suggest using to milk cows?
A: Even after everything so far, the Philistine priests still had doubts whether or not those calamities happened by chance. Remember, they were the Philistine religious leaders, and they would wish there was any way they could show that it was by chance and that their gods were not weaker. So if they hitched up two cows that were still nursing their young, and if the cows turned back to their calves, as they would most likely naturally do, then the priests could say, "see this was by chance after all."
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.65,66 for more info.
Even today, for many the "standard of evidence" required for somebody to believe something can be artificially high, because they have a vested interest in not believing something and persuading others not to believe it, while appearing reasonable at the same time.
So God caused the cows to go straight where He wanted them to go, though their continual lowing might indicate they were not happy at leaving their calves.
See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.301, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.62, the New International Bible Commentary p.357, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.312, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.604-605, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.298-299 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 6:9, was the Philistines' method a good method to use?
A: In this particular case, God allowed their simple method to work. However, do not go out and buy two cows just yet, because nothing in this verse suggests that this is a pattern believers should follow.
In general, a problem with using oxen, coin tosses, or similar methods is that they will always seem to work. For example, let's say you flipped a coin to see if God wanted to say "Yes" or "No" about something. What if God did not want to answer? What if God wanted you to use your own judgment, and for better or for worse, decide, based what was in your heart? There is no way for God to "pass" on answering with these methods.
10. In 1 Sam 6:9, were the Philistines right to think that it could have happened by chance?
A: No. What is chance? According to scientists and mathematicians, with two possible exceptions, they have never observed any truly random event that had no cause. (One possible exception is radioactive decay, about which we know very little. A second possible exception, from an atheistic perspective, is the origin of the universe.)
When people commonly say, "chance events" they really mean what mathematicians call "chaotic events". Chaotic events are such that an observer cannot predict the outcome, except by observing the outcome. Small changes in input conditions can mean large changes in output conditions. Many things are chaotic, in that within predictable bounds they are unpredictable. God is uncreated and the first cause, and we know of thing that could begin with no cause whatsoever.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.298 for more info.
11. In 1 Sam 6:19, why did God kill the Israelites of Beth-Shemesh?
A: First of all, there were two towns named Beth-Shemesh, one in Naphtali and bordering Judah and Dan. This is the second one. This Beth-Shemesh was an ancient town, first settled before Abraham's time. While the New Bible Dictionary p.146 says it was an important town, it was not the size of Hazor or Jerusalem. An estimate of the population of both the town and surrounding farms is only 20,000 people.
On a physical level, the people were killed because they looked inside the ark. God was not "required" to kill everyone who looked into the ark, even if they were forced against their will to do so. Rather, on a deeper level, God killed those Israelites because they had such a low respect for the holiness of God that they looked inside of the Ark of the Covenant. See When Critics Ask p.156 for more info.
See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.223 for more info on Beth-Shemesh.
12. In 1 Sam 6:19, does the Hebrew say 50,070, or 70?
A: This is a typographical error. Most Hebrew manuscripts have 50,070, and a few Hebrew manuscripts have 70 and lack the 50,000. Scholars disagree as to which was the original number.
70: The NSRV and RSV Catholic version translate this as 70, mentioning 50,070 in footnotes. The NIV Study Bible p.383 says it should be 70, because 50,070 was written in a grammatically incorrect way. Gleason Archer in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.222 says the number is suspiciously high, and on p.169 says that there were two correct ways to write numbers
1) 70 man and 50,000 man
2) 50,000 man and 70 man.
Archer points out that neither pattern is followed in the translation "70 man 50,000 man". This is probably why Green's Literal Translation says, "70 among the people, [including] 50 chief men".
Gleason Archer also mentions that textual errors are more frequent in 1 Samuel than in any other Old Testament book. A few Hebrew manuscripts do not have 50,070, and Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 6.1.4 (c.93-94 A.D.) said the number was only 70.
50,070: The KJV, NKJV, NASB, NET, and the Septuagint say 50,070, though the NET discusses this issue in a footnote. The Expositor's Bible Commentary p.606 says that since the major Hebrew manuscripts have this, either in the text or else in the margin, 50,070 is "textually secure" vs. 70.
1,000: Changing the spacing before one letter to after the letter changes the meaning from "He struck down among the people seventy men [and] fifty thousand men" to "He struck down the people for seven days, men for five days, a thousand men" This was suggested by R. Althann, "Consonantal ym: Ending or Noun in Isaiah 3:13; Jeremiah 7:16; 1 Samuel 6:19 in Biblica 63, 4 [1982]: p.563-565. The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.l3 p.606 mentions this view.
See also When Critics Ask p.156, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.169, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.68, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.606, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.301, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.437, and the New International Bible Commentary p.359 for more info.
13. In 1 Sam 6:21-7:2, why did they send the ark to Kiriath-Jearim instead of Shiloh?
A: Kiriath-Jearim is about ten miles northeast of Beth Shemesh. Scripture does not say, but the Philistines might have destroyed Shiloh, as Psalm 78:60; Jeremiah 7:12,14; 26:6,9 suggest.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.197, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.313, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.439, and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.605 for more info on this view.
1 Samuel 7-8 – Samuel tossing the baton to Saul – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 7:2, how long was the ark at Kiriath-Jearim?
A: 1 Samuel 7:2 says that the Ark at Kiriath-Jearim for 20 years before Samuel became a judge. However, It stayed at Kiriath Jearim for a total of about 101 years until David brought it to Jerusalem in 1003 B.C. according to 2 Samuel 5:5; 6:1-11.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.70, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.605, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.438 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 7:3-4, why did Samuel tell the Israelites to put away the foreign gods among them?
A: This verse alludes to a sad fact. Many among the Israelites were still worshipping other gods. The Canaanite/Phoenicians and later Babylonian gods were enticing to them. The Israelites needed deliverance, and they knew they needed deliverance. Samuel told them how to get God's deliverance; put away the idols they were worshipping and relying on instead of God.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.607-608, the New International Bible Commentary p.359, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.197, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.438-439 and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.299 for more info.
3. In 1 Sam 7:5, do the future battles against the Philistines show that 1 Samuel was wrong to show that the Philistines were massively defeated under Samuel as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.274 says?
A: No, because the Bible never said that the Philistines were massively defeated with great loss of life. Furthermore, the result of the battle was not that the Israelites conquered the Philistines, but that the Israelites had freedom from the Philistines for a period of time. God told Samuel God would send someone (Saul) to be a king to "save My people from the hand of the Philistines." The Philistines had a garrison in Israel and 1 Samuel 10:5 and the Philistines attacked the Israelites again later in 1 Samuel 13:5.
Sometimes a losing general chooses to retreat prior to their being great losses.
See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.302 for more info.
4. In 1 Sam 7:5-7,11 why did Samuel probably have them assemble at Mizpah?
A: Mizpah was seven or eight miles north of Jerusalem on the western border of Benjamin where it bordered Philistia which would be a good place to start a campaign against the Philistines. Of course when Hannah prayed in 1 Samuel 2:10 that God would thunder at His enemies, this was very literally fulfilled here in 1 Samuel 7:10. Also Mizpah was the place where the Israelites almost wiped out the Benjamites centuries earlier. As a consequence, though Benjamin was one of the most warlike tribes, and it was also the smallest, since suffering the massacre in Judges 19:1-20:1,3; 21:1,5,8.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.72,79, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.439, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.313 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 7:6, why did Samuel pour out water here?
A: This was not a prescribed sacrifice in the Law. Scripture elsewhere never said to do this, or not to do this. Samuel apparently did this as a visual lesson that they are pouring out their sin of idolatry.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.350, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.313 and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.301-302 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 7:7-12 what is the difference between their asking for God's help here and their (unsuccessful) asking for help in 1 Sam 4:5-11?
A: All the difference in the world. Here in 1 Samuel 7:7-12 they relied on God, not a religious symbol, that asked for prayer, they did not do something to force God's hand, and God "led" in that God's thunder went before them. In 1 Samuel 5:5-11 they relied on a symbol of God instead of God, they did not ask for prayer, they used the ark to try to force God's hand, and they wanted God to "follow" them to ensure victory. But the biggest difference of all is that here in 1 Samuel 7:3-6 they repented and "poured out on the ground" so to speak. In 1 Samuel 4:5-11 they did not repent.
It is interesting that Baal, Dagon's son, was the God of thunder, and God used thunder to drive back the Philistines.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.197 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.609 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 7:13, did the Philistines no longer occupy the territory of Israel, or did they continue to fight later in Samuel?
A: Two points to consider in the answer.
At that time, the Philistines did not either occupy Israel or fight the Israelites.
From that time on, the Philistines did not live in Israel's territory. Even after Israel's defeat at Aphek, the Philistines probably were more interested in receiving tribute and ruling over the Israelites than occupying their land.
Regardless of whether one interprets 1 Samuel 7:13 to mean the time after the battle, or from that time on, it is an accurate statement.
See When Critics Ask p.157 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 7:14, how were all the cities from Ekron to Gath restored to Israel?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
1. It does not say that all the Philistine cities were given to Israel.
2. It does not necessarily mean that Ekron and Gath were given to Israel. Indeed, it is most probable that those two cities remained in Philistine hands.
3. Rather, the smaller towns between Ekron and Gath, that the Israelites at one time occupied, were returned to Israel.
9. In 1 Sam 7:16, is this Gilgal different from the Gilgal Joshua went to, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.274 categorically states?
A: It is probably the same according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.440 and the New Geneva Study Bible p.387. The liberal Dummelow's Bible Commentary p.186 says it was probably the same. The New Bible Dictionary p.469-470 mentions that there was a Gilgal which was "opposite the ascent of Adummim" However, it says this might be the same Gilgal as the famous one east of Jericho. The liberal Harper's Bible Dictionary p.227-228 mentions that it might be the same Gilgal as Joshua's or it might be between Mizpah and Bethel. The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.609 says this Gilgal was "perhaps modern Khirbet el-Mefjer) and was a few miles from Bethel and Mizpah.
10. In 1 Sam 8:1, why did Samuel make his evil sons judges over Israel?
A: Samuel say a need to ensure his succession after his death, but his idea on how to do it was totally wrong. Having some succession is not as important as who are the successor(s). Samuel made the wrong choice because his sons, Joel and Abijah, were lovers of money and bribes. Samuel might have rationalized that he was getting too old, and choosing his sons was the most convenient option, - for him. His sons knew how to be a priest, and they probably knew God's law, but while their head had the knowledge they were lacking in their heart. Perhaps Samuel learned his manner of parenting and tolerating his children's sins from Eli's bad example. The people would have remembered the example of Eli's sons too.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.81, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.612-613, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.314, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.439, and the New International Bible Commentary p.359,360 for more info.
11. In 1 Sam 8:5-22, what is interesting about the literary structure?
A: 1 Samuel 8:5-22 uses a Hebrew literary device called a chiasm. Each topic is repeated in a symmetric fashion. The Expositor's Bible Commentary says that this chiasm is unusual, in that each even topic reverses the speaker of the previous topic. Here is the analysis from The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.615:
The people to Samuel (8:5)
— Samuel to the Lord (8:6)
— — The Lord to Samuel (8:7-9)
— Samuel to the people (8:10-18)
— — The people to Samuel (8:19-20)
— Samuel to the Lord (8:21)
— — The Lord to Samuel (8:22a)
Samuel to the people (8:22b)
This chiasm was also mentioned in The Kingship of God p.258-259.
Other chiasms in the 1 Samuel are in 3:17; 3:1-4:1; 8:5-22, and 18:20-26.
12. In 1 Sam 8:7-9, why did God dislike their asking for a king around 1051 B.C.?
A: Deuteronomy 17:14-20 shows that God planned they would eventually have a king. However, in 1 Samuel 9:7-9, God disliked their motive for asking. They asked because they did not want God to rule them directly and they wanted to be like the other nations, as 1 Samuel 8:20 shows. A king could effectively muster the army and lead them in battle. However, God knew that kings have a habit of considering the kingdom to be theirs, and people can tend to live to serve the king more than the One, True King of all Creation.
Instead of having Samuel's sons lead them, they could have waited upon God to raise up another judge, not a king. But some people don't want to have a special nation; they want to be like all the other nations. Some people don't want to be in a special family; they want to be like other "normal" families.
While scripture does not say hypothetically what would have happened if they had not asked, perhaps God would have given the people David as the first king of the unified land instead of Saul
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.169-170, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.299,300, When Critics Ask p.157-158, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.202-204, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.439, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.609.613, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.302, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.198, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.79,83 for more info.
13. In 1 Sam 8:11, why did God say the king would have chariots and horses, since Dt 17:16-17 says the king should not have chariots and horses?
A: God was not saying what he desired, but rather prophesying how the kings they asked for would oppress the people, as 1 Samuel 8:18 shows. Solomon collected many chariots, contrary to Deuteronomy 17:16-17.
14. In 1 Sam 8:11, when did kings of Israel have men run before the chariots?
A: If soldiers ran before fast chariots, and would have trouble getting out of the way, that would show that the soldiers were considered expendable. While we don't know all the times leaders of Israel did this, Absalom in 2 Samuel 15:1 and Adonijah in 1 Kings 1:5 did this.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.614 for more info.
1 Samuel 9-10 – What Saul was Like Before he was king – some brief answers
A: First what is not the answer, and then the answer.
Probably not the answer: Sometimes a person in the Bible had multiple names. However, this would be more often the case if there were multiple languages involved, or on occasion if God renamed them, such as Abrah/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel, or Simon/Peter. There is no indication of a reason for multiple names here.
A Simpler answer is that in Hebrew father can mean ancestor, and son and mean descendent. So Ner could be Kish's father, and Abiel might be an ancestor, or possibly vice versa.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.87 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 9:12,18, how did Saul not recognize a famous person like Samuel?
A: Remember, this is in the days before photographs, TV, and printing presses. Saul and his servant definitely had known of Samuel, according to 1 Samuel 9:6-8. However, they had never met him before, and so they had never seen his face, and it would not be expected that they would recognize him.
Not being able to recognize his face does not mean "he did not even know of Samuel", contrary to what Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.275 asserts.
3. In 1 Sam 9:7-9, why would people usually bring a gift to a man of God?
A: They are asking for his help, and so they reasoned they should pay the man of God, or seer, (ro'eh in Hebrew) for his services. A small gift was also given in 1 Kings 14:3 (10 loaves of bread); Amos 7:12 (bread in general) or a large give in 2 Kings 8:8-9 (every kind of good things from Damascus). A prophet could refuse the gift, as Elisha did in 2 Kings 5:15-16. However sometimes prophets and priests were greedy for gain (Jeremiah 6:13; 8:10); taken treasure (Ezekiel 22:25) or prophesied differently if they will get a gift or not (Micah 3:5,11).
Samuel and the servant had silver on them instead of coins, because coins were not invented until the seventh century B.C.. A fourth of a shekel of silver would be about three grams.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.620 for more info.
4. In 1 Sam 9:15-17, do you think God chose the best choice for king, or the kind of king people would want?
A: Saul had no experience as king, but on the other hand he was humble, feeling unworthy of the honor. Saul started out good, and he did fight the Ammonites and Philistines, but Saul was lacking in a lot of ways. If the people were adamant about wanting a king, and wanting a "kingly-looking" king, God gave them what they asked for and what they thought they wanted. Of course the civil war after Saul died was not a very good outcome of this. But short term, the Israelites knew they needed someone to lead them to victory over the Philistines and Saul was accomplishing that.
But the longer Saul was king the more the power gradually corrupted him. Saul's stubbornness and high view of his wisdom caused him to make mistakes. He proclaimed a fast while they were fighting, did not wait for Samuel, and did not kill the Amalekites like he was supposed to.
Another point is that the two largest tribes, Ephraim and Judah might have been rivals. Choosing a king from one of those two tribes could have alienated the other. However, the ultimate king would come from the tribe of Judah according to Genesis 49:10, and Saul was from Benjamin.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.441,442 the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.80, and the New International Bible Commentary p.360 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 9:15-27, what are some examples in more modern times where power or riches corrupt?
A: The Roman Emperor Nero was actually not a bad emperor for his first few years. Solomon started out as a very good king, before he got all the riches and the many foreign wives. Bill Gates set out to build good software, and even set up a foundation to give away a lot of his money to charity. (How worthwhile some of the Gates Foundation donations were is another issue that we will not consider here.) He seemed to have a happy marriage, and was well-respected, at least before Epstein's Island. I read of a good church-going man who won big in the lottery. He dutifully gave a large portion of it to his church and set up college funds for his kids. But as time went on, he went to more bars, and strip clubs, and was robbed a few times. In the end, he remarked that it would have been better for him if had had never won the lottery in the first place.
People can start out honest, virtuous and caring about others, and then a spectacular opportunity lands at their feet. They themselves might have no idea just how far their success will drag their character down.
So it seems way to easy for a fairly honest, moral person to have their virtue totally swept away by great success. One solution is to stay close to God in prayer, stay close to His Word, and stay close in fellowship with other believers.
6. In 1 Sam 9:15-17, do you think God often gives people what they want today?
A: When people, especially believers will not be happy unless they get something, sometimes God might give it to them even if it will turn out not to be the best for them. Be careful if you ask God for something with the attitude or God is not generous, or I will not be happy unless I get that specific thing.
7. In 1 Sam 9:21-22, why didn't Samuel answer Saul's question then?
A: Samuel did not want to answer Saul's question now, but he would in good time. Telling someone they will be the king, when they had no idea prior to this would be too big a step. So Samuel gave a very vague hint in 1 Samuel 9:20, and treated Saul special, for a mysterious reason. Only after Saul knew that there was something special to be revealed did Samuel finally answer Saul's question the next day.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.92-95 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 10:1 did Samuel privately anoint Saul king, or was Saul publicly declared king in 1 Sam 10:17-24?
A: Both are correct. There are four points to consider in the answer.
Anointing in private occurred in 1 Samuel 10:1.
Public proclamation and acceptance as king occurred in 1 Samuel 10:17-24. Lacking from this passage is any mention of Saul being anointed, as kings were. This is because he was already privately anointed in 1 Samuel 10:1.
The same pattern occurred with both Saul and David becoming king.
|
|
Saul |
David |
|
private anointing |
1 Sam 10:1 |
1 Sam 16:13 |
|
filled with the Spirit |
1 Sam 10:5-12 |
1 Sam 16:13 |
|
Public proclamation |
1 Sam 10:19-24 |
1 Sam 16:13 |
|
God's spirit possibly leaving |
1 Sam 15:14 |
Ps 51:11 |
Today, in general it is good to first privately talk with somebody before you go off and tell the world they are going to fill a role.
See When Critics Ask p.158-159 and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.171 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 10:1, was Saul chosen by lot, chosen by the people in 1 Sam 8:19, or chosen by God in 1 Sam 9:17; 10:24?
A: All of the above are true. Primarily, God chose Saul. Casting lots was simply a means of demonstrating God's choice. Once this was done, all the people approved, with a few exceptions noted in 1 Samuel 10:27.
10. In 1 Sam 10:1-12:25, do we see anything in Saul's character that foreshadowed that he would later be oppressed by an evil spirit and want to murder David?
A: We see nothing whatsoever. From Saul's perspective, he was an "accidental king", who was seeking donkeys and found a crown. Sometimes people who suddenly come upon good circumstances do not value their blessing, but that was not Saul's problem. He had the opposite issue in his character arc: when God chose against him as king, and appointed David after him, Saul wanted to hold on to his kingship despite knowing that God did not want him to keep it.
Saul son of Kish was one of the most complicated people in scripture. On the plus side he was courageous, generous, and (often) willing to obey God. Saul was quick which led to success in 1 Samuel 11:7-8, and disastrous in 1 Samuel 13:8-13. On the minus side he was suspicious, moody, violent, and in rebellion against God choosing someone else as king. But if you have many good and godly qualities, but you are still a rebel against God, then you are a rebel against God.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.617-618 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.621 for more info.
11. In 1 Sam 10:5; 18:6 what are these instruments?
A pottery stand was found at Ashdod in the tenth Century B.C., with pictures of a tambourine player, a flute player, a lyre player, and two other musicians.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.625,628 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.99-100 for more info.
12. In 1 Sam 10:11,12, why did Saul prophesy, since Saul later turned evil?
A: The giving of the Spirit, and the giving of prophecy were different in Old Testament times than New Testament times. The Holy Spirit could leave a disobedient Old Testament believer, as He did Samson in Judges 16:20. David was concerned that the Holy Spirit might leave him in Psalm 51:11.
The term "Is Saul among the prophets" means "He acted like a prophet among them" according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.441.
13. In 1 Sam 10:20-24, why was Saul hiding among the baggage / supplies?
A: It is ironic that Saul was originally looking for lost donkeys and found a crown. Now the people were looking for a their "lost" king and found a bashful young man. All his life he was unremarkable and unnoticed. He even lived in a city called Gibeah, which simply means "hill". But now he was noticed ore than anyone in Israel.
Saul might have hidden from modesty or fear of being put in front or everyone. Perhaps Saul felt that he was unfit to be king in his own eyes (1 Samuel 9:21), or in the envious eyes of others. Also, if it looked like Saul did not aspire to be king, then no one could accuse him of forcing his kingship on others. It could also have been that he wanted more time to consider if he really wanted to be king over the people or not. Also, Saul knew, like the other Israelites, that Samuel said it was wrong to ask for a king. Finally, if the Philistines are about to overpower the country, do you want to be the king who is at the center of opposing them?
By the way, Saul was not that young when he became king, as he had a grown up son, Jonathan, in 1 Samuel 13:2.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.619,632, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.304, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.301-302, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.199, the New International Bible Commentary p.361, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.87 for more info.
14. In 1 Sam 10:27-11:1, do we have any other evidence on Nahash the Ammonite wanting to gouge out people's eyes?
A: Yes, Josephus mentions Nahash's practice in Antiquities of the Jews 6.5.1. The Dead Sea Scroll 4Q51 (=4QSam(a)) also says that Nahash had already gouged out the eyes of Gadites and Reubenites.
See The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament p.119 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.634 for more info.
1 Samuel 11-12 – Saul the young king – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 11:1-7, why might Saul have a special concern for Jabesh-Gilead?
A: It is likely that part of Saul's ancestry was from there. In Judges 19-21, when the Benjamites were always destroyed in civil war with the other Israelites, there were only 600 Benjamites left. The other tribes had prohibited their women to marry Benjamites, but the town of Jabesh-Gilead, which had not sent any soldiers to fight the Benjamites had not. So they seized 400 maidens from Jabesh-Gilead and gave them to the Benjamites as wives. So it is highly likely that one or more of Saul's ancestors were from Jabesh-Gilead.
After Saul and Jonathan were killed, the men of Jabesh-Gilead secretly came and took the bodies to buy them.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.442 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.635 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 11:3,10 should this word be "surrender", or "come out"?
A: Both verses use the Hebrew word yatsa', (Strong's 3318) which has a wide variety of meaning. Here are various translations:
"Surrender" NIV
"Give ourselves up" NRSV
"come out" KJV, NKJV, NASB, NET, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.637
The entire verse is absent in Green's Literal translation.
3. In 1 Sam 11:5, why were the men of the town of Gibeah weeping when the messengers from Jabesh Gilead came?
A: It might be a combination of the impending fate of the men of Jabesh-Gilead, the shame of the Israelites being powerless to let this happen, or concern that it would happen to them later. But there is no hint that they had any hope whatsoever that the man from their hometown, Saul, would or could do anything about it.
Boy, were they wrong!
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.637 for more info.
4. In 1 Sam 11:8, where the numbers in the army too high, and was the division into Judah and Israel anachronistic, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.278 claims?
A: No. Actually the population of the Israelites from the time of the Exodus to David's time was fairly constant, with some ebb and flow. This number is considerably less than the census after the Exodus. However, 1 Samuel 11:8 did not say that Saul was successful in mustering every single able-bodied man.
Also, while it was not anachronistic because tribes had a fair degree of independence from each other, remember that 1 and 2 Samuel were written after there was civil war between Judah and the northern tribes with David fighting Saul's son.
Also, it is rather confusing that the Hebrew word ‘elep means 1,000 in some places, "clan" in other places, and still other places we are not sure which of the two is intended.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.633,638 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 11:10, did the people of Jabesh Gilead trick the Ammonites?
A: They prevaricated. Their words, strictly speaking, were correct. However, they misled in their intent. Let's look at this first from the Ammonite viewpoint, then the Gileadite viewpoint, and then what was communicated.
The Ammonites understood what the Gileadites were doing and even agreed to give them seven days to ask for reinforcements in verse 3. The Ammonites were so confident of both their army and the Israelite's disorganization that they specifically allowed the Gileadites seven days. By doing this, the Ammonites thought they would have them as servants without having to fight.
The Gileadites said they would "come out" tomorrow, hoping they could trust Saul, but knowing their seven days were up. The Ammonites wanted to gouge out their right eyes, and the Gileadites ironically told them they can do "whatever their eyes see fit to do".
They communicated that they would "come out" and both The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.637 and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.104 says that this Hebrew word has a broad meaning, just as "come out" does in English. It can mean "attack" as well as "surrender".
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.112 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.639 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 11:12-15, was Saul right to not execute those who had spoken against Saul in 1 Sam 10:27?
A: In retrospect, it seemed the wise choice to spare them. They were not heard from again, there was no further talk of going against Saul, and the quarrel died down. It takes wisdom to know when to stop fighting.
On the other hand, later in his life Saul seemed very vengeful against David, and Jonathan, perhaps remembering this situation, rebuked his father for that in 1 Samuel 19:4-7.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.200, the New International Bible Commentary p.362, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.641, and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.304 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 12:3, what does this say about Samuel's life at the end?
A: Samuel could stand before all of the people unashamed, because of how he lived and that he did not use his position wrongly or otherwise take advantage of others. Samuel was not perfect; look at his corrupt sons that Samuel wanted to succeed him for example. But Samuel could look back at his life, and have others examine his life, and feel unashamed. Hopefully we want to do the same.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.644 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 12:3, how can a bribe close someone's eyes?
A: This word-picture is very appropriate. A person can either choose not to investigate, pretend to be ignorant of, or just stop caring about being just to others when their heart is corrupted by a bribe. A bad heart can cause someone's eyes not to see.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.116 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 12:3-5, what is the key issue that Samuel missed?
A: Samuel wanted to explicitly point out that he was honest and did not corruptly take advantage of anyone. Samuel implied that just as the people could trust him in the past, they could trust the future predictions of God through him. Also, Samuel's example was one future leaders and kings should follow. But Samuel missed the point of why the people asked for a king. They were concerned about Samuel's corrupt sons, and Samuel's honesty was a red herring.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.443 for more info.
10. In 1 Sam 12:11, who is Bedan?
A: The Hebrew manuscripts read Bedan, while the Septuagint and Syriac read Barak.
X Bedan might have been someone who was not documented as a judge anywhere else. (1 Chronicles 7:17 mentions a Bedan of Manasseh.) However, while nothing in scripture prevents this, this view is highly unlikely. Manuscripts of 1 Samuel have more typographical errors than most Old Testament books, and it is likely that this is a typographical error. It also would be somewhat strange for Samuel to remind the people of an obscure judge they never heard of, so the people probably heard of the person here. If the person was famous enough for the people to have all remembered him, it would be likely he was mentioned in the history in the book of Judges.
Barak in Judges 4-5 was the judge intended here. The Expositor's Bible Dictionary vol.3 and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.304 hold to this view. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.443 for more on the first two views.
Abdon in Judges 12:13-15 and 1 Chronicles 9:26 was intended here. One helpful reader sent in this: "A common transformation called the Canaanite Shift would account for the transformation from Abdon to Bedan in the text. See Merrill F. Unger, the New Unger's Bible Dictionary p.3 and 152.
The note about Abdon being a Benjamite is significant since Samuel is setting up a comparison here between the new king Saul and the judges. In doing so, it is expected that Saul would meet or exceed the accomplishments of the judges, but sadly he fails." Strong's Concordance also says that Bedan is probably shortened for Abdon.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.118, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.211, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.443, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.651, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.304, and the New International Bible Dictionary p.130-131 for more info.
11. In 1 Sam 12:13-15, what is God saying here about their choice of a king?
A: While they were wrong to ask for a king now, and Israel would regret it later, what was done was done. Going forward, if they obey God, God will still bless them and give them good kings.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.303 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.120-121 for more info.
12. In 1 Sam 12:17-19, why would the people fear rain during the wheat harvest?
A: It did not usually rain during harvest time. When it was thundering and raining, it would be difficult to harvest, some of the wheat would fall off, and wet wheat that is not promptly dried would get moldy.
13. In 1 Sam 12:23, is it a sin not to pray for some one?
A: Two points to consider in the answer.
Yes, it is a sin not to pray for someone for which you should be praying.
However, there were some cases where God specifically instructed Jeremiah not to pray for the disobedient Israelites.
In 1 Sam 13:3, the Philistine fortress of Geba was only about five miles from Sal's capital at Gibeah.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.200 for more info.
1 Samuel 13 – Saul failed his first test – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 13:1, when did Saul begin to reign and how long was he king?
A: The Hebrew says, "Saul was … years old when he began to reign; and he reigned … two years over Israel." Saul actually reigned for 40 years according to both Acts 13:21 and Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews book 6, 378 14:9.. But two years here might actually be the amount of time Saul was king before the events in 1 Samuel 13:1.
We can agree that some letters were dropped out here. The conservative Christian reference books Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.171-172 and When Critics Ask p.159 say the same thing. The NASB 2020 and an NIV footnote say "thirty" is in the translation because a few late Septuagint manuscripts have "thirty". The Masoretic text we have says "… Saul was … [a] year old". In 1 Samuel 13:3 shows that Saul had a grown son, Jonathan, which makes Saul being a year old rather unlikely! Actually, Saul's son and successor Ishbosheth was forty years old when he began to reign, and he is not mentions among Saul's sons in 1 Samuel 14:49.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.321, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol. 3 p.654, the New International Bible Commentary p.363, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.123,124, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.305,and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.443,445 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 13:2, does the phrase "in his tent" mean the Israelites were still nomadic?
A: It gives us a hint that many of the Israelites were nomadic. Probably the majority of the Israelites did not dwell in walled cities. Today many nomads prefer a tent to a house. A tent is also more convenient for moving when the sheep and cattle are moved between the wet season and the dry season.
In Rehoboam's time most of the people were not nomadic, and when the northern kingdom stopped serving Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12:16f says, "So Israel departed to their tents."
3. In 1 Sam 13:5, how were there 30,000 chariots and only 6,000 charioteers?
A: 30,000 is a very large number of chariots. This was a scribal error in the Hebrew. The Greek Septuagint says 3,000 chariots. Philistines used chariots with two people.
See Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.46, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.321, When Critics Ask p.159-160, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.126,127, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.172-173, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.445, and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.305 for more info.
4. In 1 Sam 13:8-10, why did Samuel delay past the appointed time, and what did this mean for Saul?
A: A couple of years ago Samuel told Saul to wait for seven days in 1 Samuel 10:8. We don't know why Samuel chose to delay. It certainly would not have been forgetfulness before such a major battle. Perhaps Samuel was sick, or Samuel was delayed by circumstances. Another idea is that God deliberately wanted Samuel to delay to see what Saul would do. The consequences of failure were great, as the Philistines at Micmash were only five miles from Gibeah, the capital.
Saul desperately wanted the Lord's favor before fighting, and he would use any means to get it. Saul wanting to have a special sacrifice was not a sin, as David did so in 2 Samuel 24:25 and Solomon did in 1 Kings 8:62-64. But it David and Solomon would have done proper sacrifices, with the high priest, not like Saul deliberately disobeyed the express command to wait for Samuel.
This is a test of what Saul ultimately relied on: what he saw or what he believed. If victory was up to Saul, he saw that he could handle it on his own power. However, if the people kept leaving, then victory would be out of his power, so the obvious thing to do was attack before too many soldiers left. On the other hand, God could have the Israelites defeat the Philistines with even few men than these, combined with lightning, God striking terror into the Philistines, or an earthquake as God did in 1 Samuel 14:15. If victory was up to Saul, he really need to sacrifice and attack now. If victory was up to God, then Saul could simply relax and obey. What was Saul going to trust in?
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.445, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol. 3 p.655-656, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.321-322, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.130, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.201, and the New International Bible Commentary p.363 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 13:13, what did Saul lose here?
A: This does not mean that Saul should no longer be king. Rather, it means that the throne would be taken away from his descendents, in this case his son Ishbosheth. Saul was pronounced not the rightful king after his second infraction, sparing the Amalekite king and booty in 1 Samuel 15:22-23.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.129 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 13:13, how was Saul rejected from his dynasty reigning for all time, since the throne was prophesied to Judah in Gen 49:10?
A: While God can make conditional promises to people, God did not even make a conditional promise to Saul here. God informed Saul of what he lost by his disobedience.
Note that when Samuel said that Saul's kingdom would have endured "if" he had obeyed, God is sharing through Samuel "meta-knowledge" or "hypothetical knowledge" here. This is not what will happen but what would have happened if Saul had made the conditions different.
Genesis 49:10 shows that Saul's disobedience was not a surprise to God. God had already planned on Saul freely choosing to disobey, and the later choice of David.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.173, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.204-206, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.129, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol. 3 p.656-657, When Critics Ask p.160 and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.304 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 13:14, how could David be a man after God's own heart, since David later committed some very serious sins?
A: Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.54 answers this well. "David's lies, wars, and adulteries are recorded with as much accuracy as his piety and his triumphs. He was a man after God's own heart, not because he never sinned, but because, having sinned, he repented." David did follow God faithfully except for the situation with Uriah the Hittite according to 1 Kings 15:5.
8. In 1 Sam 13:21 is a "pim" translated as two-thirds of a shekel?
A: Until this century, the Hebrew word here pim was not known elsewhere, However, the New International Bible Dictionary p.1063 says that recent archaeological excavations have uncovered weights marked as "pim" which are 2/3 of a shekel. Pim was a word that nobody would know what it meant for a 2,000 year period, yet the letters were translated accurately.
See The Qur'an and the Bible p.133 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol. 3 p.659-660 which refers to BASOR 43 [1931] 9 and Biblical Archaeology Review 15.1 [1989], 49 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 13:22, why did the Israelite soldiers not have any swords or spears, since they had to have weapons to defeat the Ammonites back in 1 Sam 11:11?
A: Saul and Jonathan had a sword and spear in 1 Samuel 13:22, and Jonathan even had armor in 1 Samuel 14:6. However, the vast majority of soldiers did not have a sword or spear, especially iron swords and spears. When Saul went forward to attack the Philistines in 1 Samuel 13:15 he only took 600 men. The Philistines had a policy of disarming the Israelites according to 1 Samuel 13:19. But an ancient army could have many weapons without having swords or spears. Sword blades are made entirely out of metal, and spears all have metal spearheads. The point of 1 Samuel 13:22 is that they did not have those kinds of metal weapons, because the Philistines held a monopoly on iron-smelting. If the Israelites had any swords or spears before, the Philistines would want to confiscate them to keep any Israelite uprising ineffective. The Israelites would still have sharp metal objects for farming, but in war they would be at a distinct disadvantage.
However, the Israelites were not defenseless, and they defeated the Ammonites in 11:11. They still had other weapons, such as:
Axes (1 Samuel 13:20) (Battleaxes were one of the preferred weapons of Franks and Vikings.) Those would be needed on a farm, so the Philistines permitted those.
Sharpened metal tips on farm implements such as scythes, pitchforks, and mattocks. (1 Samuel 13:20-21) (In the Middle Ages, massed scythes were effective weapons against mounted armored knights in the Hussite Revolt.)
Knives and daggers (Judges 3:16) (Short swords, not long swords, were the preferred weapon of later Roman soldiers for close combat.)
Slings (Judges 20:13; 1 Samuel 17:50)
Ox-goads with metal tips (Judges 3:31; 1 Samuel 13:21) Ox-goads could be up to 7-10 feet long.
Possibly hammers (Judges 4:21)
Probably various clubs and sharpened wood poles.
Probably few Israelites besides Jonathan used bows and arrows yet.
In summary, the Israelites probably had an abundance of weapons and farm tools, but what they lacked were spears, swords, and other iron weapons besides those.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.130-131,134-135 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.322 for more info.
1 Samuel 14 – Made-up rules to try to please God – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 14:3, who was Ahijah?
A: This was a grandson of the priest Eli who was serving as the high priest. This might have been another name for Ahimelech. Since Eli died when he was 98 years old, and Phinehas had been killed in battle not long before, Phinehas might have been 65 or so, and Ahitub might have been around 40 years old when Samuel became a prophet. Ahimelech's son Abiathar was high priest for all of David's 40-year reign until Solomon deposed him.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.136-137 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 14:1 why did Jonathan decide to raid the Philistine outpost here?
A: Saul, his father, was not doing anything. Jonathan was initiating the conflict and looking to God to provide the victory. If successful it might encourage the Israelites and demoralize the Philistines. Sometimes we are either frozen by fear, or else looking to provided our own victories, when we should be looking to God to provide the victory.
Jonathan's raid was a secret, and he did not ask Saul, the priest Ahijah or anyone else for permission to go. Gideon fought the Midianites with only a few men in Judges 7:15, so God does not need numbers.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.201 and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.304 and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.306 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.660 for more info.
3. In 1 Sam 14:1,3,18-20 when are times a believer might be waiting on guidance when they already know what to do?
A: In Saul's defence, Samuel rebuked Saul for not waiting after the appointed time for Samuel and then Samuel left in 1 Samuel 13:15. So Saul might have been especially keen to listen to the high priest. But Saul did not have to wait so long, and it was not that every single decision had to get a thumbs up or thumbs down from God through the high priest.
Sometimes a believer might pause in doing God's will, perhaps for something they really don't want to do, because they are waiting on God's will, when they already know God's will. Saul had only a few men at this point, so Saul was reluctant to go into battle with such few men, and from a purely human standpoint he might have been right. We don't know most things with certainty, but we can have confidence on what we should do. But what if we don't do it perfectly? Actually, in hindsight we probably don't do many things perfectly; but that is OK, God can use our showing up and serving Him as best we know how, despite that being imperfectly. And sometimes, God can even use our imperfections.
4. In 1 Sam 14:11, why did the Philistines tell Jonathan and his armorer bearer to come?
A: they did not know what to make of just two soldiers. Did they really want to fight, or were they possibly deserters coming over to the Philistine side?
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.323 and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.306 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 14:15, how was there such great trembling?
A: This was an area of steep wadis, (like arroyos in Mexico and the American southwest.) The soft dirt sides are steep and you don't want to be in one if there is an earthquake. This was a precisely timed small earthquake. Of course the Philistines would also panic that only two (albeit well-armed) Hebrews killed twenty Philistine warriors. In the noise, perhaps they thought Jonathan and his armor-bearer was "bait" and a larger Israelite force was right behind them. A minor earthquake happening at that time would tend to make them tremble with fear even more, suspecting that supernatural forces were against them.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.201, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.323 and the New International Bible Commentary p.363-364 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 14:20-21, what is an important point about the Philistines here?
A: A fairly large number of the Philistine's soldiers were actually Israelites fighting for the Philistines. When Saul and Jonathan came, these Israelites turned and supported Saul and Jonathan.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.141,142 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 14:24-25, why did Saul command the soldiers not to eat before they had victory?
A: First of all neither Samuel nor God had told Saul to do this. Here are two possible reasons Saul might have foolishly commanded this, and perhaps both are true.
First, Saul wanted to show God how dedicated he and his army was, so that God would bless the army and give them victory. Saul could have thought that he would have looked good in the eyes of God, and in the eyes of the Israelites.
Second, perhaps Saul wanted to make this arbitrary, foolish rule, to show that he was a king who could make the rules.
However, when God did not answer Saul about pursuing the Philistines, Saul knew that someone had broken his foolish command, which God intended for them to follow since Saul made the oath. Of course the simplest things is James 5:12 in the New Testament; just don't swear oaths at all.
A consequence of his foolish command is that the Philistines mostly got away. These same Philistines could return later and fight at Mount Gilboa, where Saul and Jonathan were killed. Foolish commands to other can lead to missed-out opportunities, but they can also lead to more hardships and dangers you would not have otherwise had.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.147, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.323, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.306, the New International Bible Commentary p.364, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.305 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 14:24-25, why do religious people make arbitrary rules today, and what are some of those rules?
A: Perhaps religious people make extra rules today for similar reasons.
1) They want to show God, and especially other people, who dedicated they are by doing those things.
2) They want to show how religiously powerful they are in being able to make up rules and having them considered as God's will.
It is very strange how prone people are to gain favor with God by making rules God did not ask command, or doing things God did not ask for.
There are many examples throughout history. The Jewish Pharisees had a "hedge" of laws around the Torah to make sure someone did not accidentally break the Torah. Roman Catholicism has taught people not to eat fish on Friday. The Second Council of Nicea (787 A.D.) said a church could not be built unless it had a relic. Church of Christ had said you cannot have mechanical musical instruments in church. Many conservative Baptists have said you should never drink alcohol. Some of those rules might be better than others, but the common point is that some people want human rules to be on par with God's commands.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.201 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.147 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 14:37-38, why did God not answer the priests here?
A: There are at least four points to observe here.
1. Saul was rash in pronouncing the curse against any Israelite that ate that day. Saul probably did that so that no one would stop pursuing the Philistines and start looting, but his decree robbed them of strength for that day.
2. God did not say "no", but rather did not answer, to see how far their rashness would carry them.
3. It probably was better that they did not pursue the Philistines in their exhausted state, after not eating.
4. God did not answer them because there was some unfinished business they had with God first. It was known to some that Jonathan had eaten honey. If that was not dealt with, people would take lightly things said to the Lord. After it was brought out in the open, and the army saw that it was not just for Jonathan to die, then they could go on.
10. In 1 Sam 14:29-30, was Jonathan being disrespectful here, saying the command of his father the king was wrong?
A: On one hand, Jonathan's words were correct; Saul did make a mistake. As a commander in battle, it was fine to point out possible mistakes to his superior.
However, on the other hand, instead of Jonathan privately telling Saul that he made a mistake, Jonathan pointed out Saul's mistake publicly. Even if Jonathan was disrespectful to his father and king though, there is no suggestion that we should follow Jonathan's example. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.281 sees a certain coldness here between the king and heir apparent, that is not uncommon in monarchies. If you read 1 Samuel 14:44, where Saul promises he will kill Jonathan that day, perhaps Asimov is correct here.
11. In 1 Sam 14:34-35, why did Saul make an altar here?
A: This was not just a memorial, and it was not a permanent sacrificial altar in place of Gilgal. Rather, it was a place where they could properly kill the animals. Saul saw that what the people did was wrong, and he wanted them not ot disobey God, even though he had already done so.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.144-145 for more info.
12. In 1 Sam 14:32-34,43, why were all the Israelite soldiers not executed, since they ate meat with blood?
A: Five points to consider in the answer.
1. One did not have to microscopically drain every drop, but Leviticus 17:13 indicates all they had to do was simply drain the blood in the field prior to eating.
2. However, 1 Samuel 14:32-34 clearly indicates that at first the hungry Israelite soldiers did not even do that like they were supposed to do.
3. Samuel did not approve of their actions. Whether done out of ignorance, haste to eat, or both, Samuel insisted that they obey God's law.
4. Saul wanted to put anyone to death, even his own son Jonathan, for breaking his own rule he made that day. However, it was inconsistent that Saul did not even think of punishing the soldiers for breaking God's rule made some centuries before.
5. In the three thousand years since this was written, has anything really changed? Even today, many leaders of religious groups are more concerned with people breaking their own rules, which have no basis in the Bible, than in breaking God's rules.
13. In 1 Sam 14:32-34,43, what other lessons can we learn for today?
A: There are at least two lessons we can learn.
1. There can be extenuating circumstances that lighten or remove a temporal punishment for breaking a law of God or law of the land. Romans 4:15 and 5:12 also show this.
2. If a religious leader is more concerned with God's people obeying their new law, than with God's commands for us, there is something wrong. That leader's emphasis should not be followed.
14. In 1 Sam 14:39, why did Saul make a second foolish oath after the first?
A: Apparently Saul thought that making rash oaths, as Jephthah and Gideon did, was the way to show how tough you were and how fit you were to lead. Saul valued showing himself tough and keeping oaths more than his own son's life. This is the same Saul who had spared the men who had spoken against him being king in 1 Samuel 11:12-13.
Saul had looked like a good king, being taller than the others. But oaths like this showed what a foolish man he was.. Saul was effective in fighting the Philistines and others though, and if that is all the Israelites wanted that is what they got.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.324,the New International Bible Commentary p.364, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.202 for more info.
1 Samuel 15 – God is Done with Casual Obedience – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 15:1-5, why did God tell Saul to destroy all the Amalekites?
A: We can see three reasons why God gave this command to Saul.
1. The Israelites were specifically commanded by God to destroy the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 25:17-19; ~Exodus 17:14-16; ~Numbers 24:20.
2. There was an ancient and continuing hostility between them and the Israelites. The Amalekites had ambushed the slower part of the Israelites from the rear.
3. Before coming to Canaan, the Amalekites attacked the Israelites without provocation, and ambushed various groups of them.
It is curious that Saul had it appear he was willing to kill his own son because of his oath in 1 Samuel 14:44, yet Saul was not willing to kill all the Amalekites.
See When Critics Ask p.161, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.307, and Hard Sayings of the Bible p.206-207 for more info.
2. In 1 Sam 15:2, what do we know about the Amalekites?
A: Let's look at their past, their history after Saul, and specifically their king.
Their past: The Amalekites are first mentioned in Genesis 14:7 when the kings from Mesopotamia invaded their lands. These preceded Amalek grandson of Esau in Genesis 36:12. While the Bedouin Kenites were friendly to Moses and the Israelites, the Bedouin Amalekites attacked the Israelites in Moses' time in Exodus 17:8-14. In Exodus 17:16 Moses said that the Lord will never stop warring against the Amalekites. The main Amalekite city is likely to have been modern Tel Masos, about seven miles east-southeast of Beersheba. A destruction layer has been found consistent with the Israelite attack.
Their History: Since the Amalekites were mainly nomadic, with few cities, and their numbers were decreased after Saul fighting with them, we do not hear much more about the Amalekites, except that Saul did not totally destroy them; others apparently survived in other places. The Amalekites did sack the city of Ziklag and David pursued them in 1 Samuel 30:1-17. Their territory in the Negev was later taken over by Edomites. The last mention of the Amalekites is in 1 Chronicles 4:43 in Hezekiah's time.
Their King: We did not know if Agag was the name of the king, or if it was the title for their king, like Pharoah is the title for the king of Egypt. In Esther 3:1,10; 8:3,5; 9:24 Haman was an Agagite. We don't know where the city of Agag was. Perhaps it was not a city but rather that Haman was descended from Amalekite kings. Josephus says that that Haman was an Amalekite in Antiquities of the Jews book 11, 211.
See the New International Dictionary of the Bible p.38, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.674, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.202, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.324-325 for more info.
3. In 1 Sam 15:11,35, why did God repent that He made Saul king?
A: The word can also be translated "grieved." God expresses His emotions in time as events occur. Jeremiah 15:8 goes into detail on this. Also see the discussion on Genesis 20:3,6. When Critics Ask p.41,161, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.205-206, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.108-109, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.80-81,173-174, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.305 for more extensive answers.
4. In 1 Sam 15:11, why was Samuel "grieved all night"?
A: It was not that they should never have a king, but they should not have insisted on a king, right now, like the other nations instead of God. Finally, when they got a king, they got a king who took obedience to God lightly and obeyed in a half-hearted way. Samuel grieved over a God-appointed leader who declined spiritually as he relied on his strength and own counsel instead of God. Samuel also probably wondered about the spiritual condition of the people seeing the leader like this.
5. In 1 Sam 15:19, why were God and Samuel angry that Saul kept the plunder?
A: Since they would benefit from the plunder, others could claim that obeying God was only a pretense, claiming the war was really for plunder. Saul thought that defeating them, and keeping some animals to sacrifice to God, would, somehow, be more pleasing to God than obeying God.
Notice that Saul told Samuel that he had carried out the Lord's instructions, when actually he had not carried out the Lord's instructions. Saul had even built a monument to himself celebrating what he did, in 1 Samuel 15:12b. (Note to self, when you only partially obey God, don't build a monument to yourself.) The monument was in Carmel in Judah seven miles south of Hebron, not Mount Carmel in Lebanon.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.365, The Bible Knowledge Commetary : Old Testament p.447, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.676-677, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.307, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.325, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.306 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 15:22, why is obedience better than sacrifice?
A: The sacrifice of an obedient believer is precious to God. It demonstrates the person's submission to the Lord. However, sacrifices done out of a heart that is not willing to submit to God cannot really demonstrate genuine submission to God. Serving under God is not better than obedience to God. The Amalekites did not fear God, but apparently neither did Saul.
In a similar way, Paul soberly warns us in 1 Corinthians 13:3 that if we give away all we have and are burned to death for the Christian faith, yet we do not have love, our sacrifice is of no benefit. In fact, Saul's sacrifice was basically trying to legitimize his partial obedience.
As a side note, about a thousand years earlier the Egyptian Instruction for Meri-ka-Re, says, "More acceptable is the character of one upright of heart than the ox of the evildoer." (ANET p.417)
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.150,155-156, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.308, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.207-208, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.325-326, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.677, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.203 for more info.
7. In 1 Sam 15:23, how is arrogance like the evil of idolatry?
A: Arrogance is assuming for yourself or others a place that belongs to someone else. Idolatry is the height of arrogance. A person assumes, for himself or his idol, a place that belongs to God, who created Him. We should worship nothing or no one except for God.
Saul partial obedience, or reinterpreting of God's command, shows that Saul considered Himself first not a servant of God, but rather an absolute ruler.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.153 for more info.
8. In 1 Sam 15:24-26, why did Saul ask for forgiveness, and why did God through Samuel not give it?
A: Samuel was both saddened that God would reject Saul and angry that Saul did that. Samuel cried the whole night according to 1 Samuel 15:11b. In 1 Samuel 15:21, Saul put the blame on the people, not himself. It is as though Saul had the authority to call the people to arms, where they would possibly die, but he couldn't tell them to obey God here. Of course Samuel and God saw through this, then Saul became genuinely sorry; - that is, genuinely sorry that he was not the rightful king anymore. But there is no evidence that Saul learned to stop trusting in his own judgment over God's. God was "done" with Saul, and He was going to choose someone else. So Samul was about to abruptly leave, because he was all done here.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.154-155 for more info.
9. In 1 Sam 15:26, once Samuel told Saul that God rejected Saul as king, should Saul have stepped down as king?
A: Samuel apparently did not expect Saul to step down immediately. When Saul asked Samuel to stay to respect him as king before the people in 1 Samuel 15:30-31, Samuel agreed to do so. But after this, Samuel never saw Saul again. Note that for all of Saul's reign after his war against the Amalekites, he was a king who knew he was in a place he should not have been.
When David was anointed as king, Saul was not asked to step down, perhaps because it was certain he would not be obedient and do so. An important point is that David was honoring of Saul anyway.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.159 for more info.
10. In 1 Sam 15:27-30, what was the meaning of tearing Samuel's robe?
A: When Saul was desperately pleading with Sameul for forgiveness, Saul accidentally tore Samuel's robe and Samuel knew it was an accident. But sometimes an accident can be a prophetic foreshadowing for a future event. Samuel said that just as Saul tore away part of his robe, God would tear away the kingdom from Saul.
In a sense, God could view both Saul and David were men after his own heart. David was a man after God's heart, and Saul was a man after Saul's heart.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.306, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.203, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.679, and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.308 for more info.
11. In 1 Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19, since God will not "repent", why did God repent in 1 Sam 15:11,35?
A: Genesis 6:6 and Genesis 20:3-6 shows similar. God was grieved that He made Saul king, and God's emotions are expressed when the events occur. Second, God's intents and actions towards someone can change when they change. In Genesis 20:3-6 Abimelech was told he was a dead man because of his unintentional sin. But when Abimelech knew, and repented, and sent Sarah back to Abraham, God did not kill Abimelech after all.
See the Believer's Bible Commentary p.308 for more info.
12. In 1 Sam 15:29; Num 23:19, why are these verses important in talking with Mormons?
A: They are important for two reasons. First, both verses say that God is not a man, unlike what Mormonism teaches. But some Mormons say that God is not a mortal man now, but formerly a mortal man and now a glorified man. But Numbers 23:19 says that God is not a "son of man" either.
Second, God does not change His decrees. If blacks clearly could not go to the highest heaven and become gods in Mormon teaching, from the time of Joseph Smith an on, then why did the Mormon god change His mind in 1978 and say they could become gods too?
13. In 1 Sam 15:35 how did Saul not see Samuel's face again, since Saul prophesied in Samuel's presence in 1 Samuel 19:24?
A: 1 Samuel 15:35 can be taken two ways:
a) Saul literally would not see Samuel's face again, or
b) an expression that Samuel would never come to see Saul again as he had before until his death.
Assuming it means the first way, in 1 Samuel 19:24, while Saul was on his way to hunt down and kill David, God caused Saul to lose control and prophesy. That he lost control is evidenced not just by stripping off his robes, but by laying that way on the road to David and Samuel in Ramah all that day and night. Saul was definitely out of it. 1 Samuel 19:24 does not say either that Saul, lying motionless the same way saw Samuel, or that Samuel came close enough for Saul to see Samuel's face even if he was cognizant of his surroundings.
Assuming it means the second way, Samuel never again went to see Saul. But if that is true, then what about the witch of Endor incident in 1 Samuel 28:10-11? This might not have been Samuel, but a demon impersonating Samuel. However, even if it were Samuel, 1 Samuel 15:35 only says Saul would not see Samuel's face again "until the day Samuel died".
1 Samuel 16 – Passing from Saul to David – some brief answers
Q: In 1 Sam 16:1-3, why did God command Samuel to mislead people?
A: Concealing something and lying are not the same. Every time you leave your house and leave the lights on, you might be misleading would-be burglars, but you are not sinning by lying. Lying is knowingly saying something that is untrue. Samuel never lied, and God never commanded Samuel to lie.
God did instruct Samuel to not tell all the truth. That is OK. When someone would do evil by killing you if you told everything you know, then do not tell everything you know. Samuel was told to do two things:
1) offer a sacrifice at Bethlehem
2) anoint a new king
Samuel told others he was going to do the first, but Samuel did not tell people he also was going to do the second. In similar situations today, believers can do the same.
See When Critics Ask p.162, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.175-178, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions 223-224, and Hard Sayings of the Bible p.210-211 for more info.
Q: In 1 Sam 16:4, why did the elders of Bethlehem ask Samuel if he came in peace?
A: Samuel was the Hebrew most responsible for the victory over the Philistines at Gibeah in 1 Samuel 7:9-13. God supernaturally helped the Israelites while Samuel was offering a sacrifice. Since Samuel was coming to Bethlehem to offer a sacrifice, the elders might be apprehensive about what was going to happen this time.
Q: Prior to 1 Sam 16:4 and the time of Saul, is the tribe of Judah so much ignored in the Bible that there is strong suspicion that it was not considered a part of Israel up to that time, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.284 says?
A: No, here are the facts: In Judges chapters 1 to 18, here are the number of times each tribe is mentioned:
Judah (16 times) Judges 1:2,3,4,8,9,16,17,18,19; 10:9; 15:9,11; 17:7 (2x), 9, 12
Simeon (2 times) Judges 1:3,17
Ephraim (24 times) Judges 1:29; 2:9; 3:27; 4:5; 5:14; 7:24 (2x) 8:1,2; 10:1,9; 12:1; 12:4 (3x), 12:5 (3x), 12:6,15; 17:1,8; 18:2,12
Joseph (2 times) Judges 1:22,35
Manasseh (5 times) Judges 1:27; 6:15,35; 7:23; 12:4
Benjamin (4 times) Judges 1:21; 3:15; 5:14; 10:9
Asher (4 times) Judges 1:31; 5:17; 6:35; 7:23
Zebulun (7 times) Judges 1:30; 4:7,10; 5:14,18; 6:35; 12:11
Issachar (2 times) Judges 5:15 (2x)
Dan (10 times) Judges 1:34; 5:17; 13:2,25; 18:1,2,11,12,16,22
Levite (5 times) Judges 17:9,11,12; 18:3,15
Naphtali (8 times) Judges 1:33 (2x); 4:6,7,10; 5:18; 6:35; 7:23
Gilead (2 times) Judges 10:3,17
Makir (1 time) Judges 5:14
Reuben (2 times) Judges 5:15,16
The rest of Judges primarily concerns Benjamin, but here are the numbers for that.
Benjamin (42 times) 19:14,16; 20:3,4,10,12,13,15,17,18,20,21,23,24,25,28,30,31,32,34,35 (2x), 36 (2x), 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; 21:1,6,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,23
Judah (5 times) 19:1,2,19 (2x); 20:18
Ephraim (2 times) 19:1,16
Levites (2 times) 19:1; 20:4
Dan (1 time) 20:1
Gilead (1 time) 20:1
Conclusion: Looking at the numbers, it is very hard to see why Asimov thought Judah was ignored so much that it was not considered a part of Israel until Saul's time. It was mentioned more than any other tribe except Ephraim.
Q: In 1 Sam 16:9-10, what were the names of David's brothers and sisters?
A: Their names are given in 1 Chronicles 2:13-17.
Q: In 1 Sam 16:10, did Jesse have 8 sons with David being the youngest, or was David the seventh son of Jesse as 1 Chr 2:13-15 says?
A: There are two different answers.
Seven: 1 Samuel has more copyist errors than most other Old Testament books, and this could be a copyist error in 1 Samuel.
Eight: This might be a copyist error in 1 Chronicles. The Syriac of 1 Chronicles 27:18 lists both Eliab and Elihu as sons, which makes eight sons. The Hebrew of 1 Chronicles lists Elihu but not Eliab, and the Septuagint lists Eliab but not Elihu. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.239 prefers this answer.
Childhood death: In ancient times children often died before reaching adulthood. Thus Jesse had eight sons, but only seven adult sons. When Critics Ask p.163 points out that many times people then only spoke in terms of their surviving children.
See also Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.174 for more info.
Q: In 1 Sam 16:14,23, and 1 Sam 18:10, how did an evil spirit from God come on Saul?
A: In Hebrew, "evil" has two meanings: 1) moral evil and 2) something that is hurtful or harmful. The second meaning is intended here. Whether God sent an angel to punish Saul, or whether God allowed a demon to torment Saul, either way, this was expressly permitted by God.
Muslims should not be surprised that the term "evil" can mean harm, and not just moral evil. The term is used in this way in their own writings, in the Bukhari Hadith volume 3 book 29 ch.7 no.56 p.35.
See When Critics Ask p.165-166, Difficulties in the Bible p.109-110, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.211-212, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.178-180 for more info.
Q: In 1 Sam 16:21-23, did David become Saul's armor bearer before fighting Goliath, or after in 1 Sam 17:4?
A: There is no reason David could not have been the armor bearer before fighting Goliath. Since there is nothing saying 1 Samuel 17 was after David being armor bearer, and there is no requirement that a truthful account be in strict chronological order when it does not claim to be so, David could have been armor bearer either before or after this.
by Steven M. Morrison, PhD.
2 Samuel 10:18 speaks of 700 chariots, while 1 Chronicles 19:18 has 7,000. 2 Samuel 15:7 (Masoretic and Septuagint) Absalom took 40 years for his conspiracy, but other Septuagint Manuscripts and Josephus apparently say only 4.
1 Samuel 13:1 says Saul was one years old, while some Septuagint manuscripts say 30 years old.
2 Samuel 23:8 has 800 while 1 Chronicles 11:11 says 300. 2 Samuel 10:16 20,000 footman, and 12,000 men are 32,000 chariots in 1 Chronicles 19:7.
The Hebrew word ‘eleph can means thousands or family or clan.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.350 for more info.
1 Sam 4 the Philistines killed 4,000 soldiers, or 30,000 foot soldiers.
1 Sam 11:8,11 330 professional solders relieved Jabesh-gilead or &&&33,000 crossed the Jordan to relieve Jabesh-gilead.
1 Sam 15:of 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 men of Judah. Wenham says 200 foot soldiers and 10 men of Judas against a village.
2 Sam 17:18 12,000 soldiers to pursue, but casualties of 20,000 2 Sam 18;7. Perhaps 1,2000 and 2,000.
&&& See the New International Bible Commentary p.351 for more info
2 Samuel 7 and 8 are perhaps not chronological. 2 Samuel 21-24 are sort of an appendix that go into details on earlier events.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.192-193 for more info.
There are no quotes of 1 Samuel in the New Testament 2 Samuel has three quotes in the New Testament: 2 Samuel 7:8,14 in 2 Corinthians 6:18; 2 Samuel 7:14 in Hebrews 1:5; 2 Samuel 22:50 in Romans 15:9.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.559 for more info.
Rephaim (giants) are also mentioned in Phoenician inscriptions.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.7 part 1 p.310-311 for more info.
1 Sam 7 50,070, Josephus says 70.
Q: In 1 Sam 14:50-51, was Kish Saul's father, and Ner Saul's uncle, or 1 Chr 8:33; 9:39?
A: We have no reason to doubt either account. It was not uncommon for someone to be named after their father. So Ner might be the father of both Kish and Kish's brother named Ner.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.87 for more info.
Amos 7:1 the king's mowing. 10% of the flocks and the fields.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.614 for more info.