Bible Commentaries

Saul's Victory over the Ammonites. - Even after the election by lot atMizpeh, Saul did not seize upon the reins of government at once, butreturned to his father's house in Gibeah, and to his former agriculturaloccupation; not, however, merely from personal humility and want ofambition, but rather from a correct estimate of the circumstances. Themonarchy was something so new in Israel, that the king could not expect ageneral and voluntary recognition of his regal dignity and authority,especially after the conduct of the worthless people mentioned in 1 Samuel 10:27, until he had answered their expectations from a king (1 Samuel 8:6, 1 Samuel 8:20),and proved himself a deliverer of Israel from its foes by a victoriouscampaign. But as Jehovah had chosen him ruler over his people withoutany seeking on his part, he would wait for higher instructions to act,before he entered upon the government. The opportunity was soon givenhim.

1 Samuel 11:1-5

Nahash, the king of the Ammonites (cf. 1 Samuel 12:12; 2 Samuel 10:2), attacked the tribes on the east of the Jordan, no doubt with theintention of enforcing the claim to part of Gilead asserted by his ancestorin the time of Jephthah (Judges 11:13), and besieged Jabesh in Gilead,

(Note: The time of this campaign is not mentioned in the Hebrewtext. But it is very evident from 1 Samuel 12:12, where the Israelites aresaid to have desired a king, when they saw that Nahash had comeagainst them, that Nahash had invaded Gilead before the election ofSaul as king. The Septuagint, however, renders the wordsכמחרישׁ ויהי (1 Samuel 10:27) by καὶ ἐγενήθη ὡς μετὰ μῆνα , and therefore thetranslators must have read כּמחדשׁ, which Ewald and Theniuswould adopt as an emendation of the Hebrew text. But all the otherancient versions give the Masoretic text, viz., not only the Chaldee,Syriac, and Arabic, but even Jerome, who renders it ille vero dissimulabat se audireIt is true that in our present Vulgate text thesewords are followed by et factum est quasi post mensem;but thisaddition has no doubt crept in from the Itala. With the generalcharacter of the Septuagint, the rendering of כמחרישׁ by ὡς μετὰ μῆνα is no conclusive proof that theword in their Hebrew Codex was כּמחדשׁ; it simply shows thatthis was the interpretation which they gave to כמחריש. And Josephus (vi. 5, 1), who is also appealed to, simply establishesthe fact that ὡς μετὰ μῆνα stood in the Sept. version of his day, since he made use of this version and not of theoriginal text. Moreover, we cannot say with Ewald, that this was thelast place in which the time could be overlooked; for it is perfectlyevident that Nahash commenced the siege of Jabesh shortly after theelection of Saul at Mizpeh, as we may infer from the verb ויּעל, when taken in connection with the fact implied in 1 Samuel 12:12, that he had commenced the war with the Israelites before this. And lastly, it is much more probable that the lxx changed כמחריש into כמחדש, than that the Hebrew readers of the Old Testamentshould have altered כמחדש into כמחריש, without defining the timemore precisely by אחד, or some other number.)

- according to Josephus the metropolis of Gilead, and probably situated bythe Wady Jabes (see at Judges 21:8); from which we may see that he musthave penetrated very far into the territory of the Israelites. The inhabitantsof Jabesh petitioned the Ammonites in their distress, “Make a covenantwith us, and we will serve thee;” i.e., grant us favourable terms, and wewill submit.

1 Samuel 11:2

But Nahash replied, “On this condition (בּזאת, lit. at thisprice, בּ pretii) will I make a covenant with you, that I may put out allyour right eyes, and so bring a reproach upon all Israel.” From the fact thatthe infinitive נקור is continued with ושׂמתּי, it isevident that the subject to נקור is Nahash, and not the Israelites,as the Syriac, Arabic, and others have rendered it. The suffix to שׂמתּיה is neuter, and refers to the previous clause: “it,” i.e., the putting outof the right eye. This answer on the part of Nahash shows unmistakeablythat he sought to avenge upon the people of Israel the shame of the defeatwhich Jephthah had inflicted upon the Ammonites.

1 Samuel 11:3-4

The elders of Jabesh replied: “Leave us seven days, that wemay send messengers into all the territory of Israel; and if there is no onewho saves us, we will come out to thee,” i.e., will surrender to thee. Thisrequest was granted by Nahash, because he was not in a condition to takethe town at once by storm, and also probably because, in the state ofinternal dissolution into which Israel had fallen at that time, he had noexpectation that any vigorous help would come to the inhabitants ofJabesh. From the fact that the messengers were to be sent into all theterritory of Israel, we may conclude that the Israelites had no centralgovernment at that time, and that neither Nahash nor the Jabeshites hadheard anything of the election that had taken place; and this is still moreapparent from the fact that, according to 1 Samuel 11:4, their messengers came toGibeah of Saul, and laid their business before the people generally, withoutapplying at once to Saul.

1 Samuel 11:5

Saul indeed did not hear of the matter will he came (returnedhome) from the field behind the oxen, and found the people weeping andlamenting at these mournful tidings. “Behind the oxen,” i.e., judging fromthe expression “yoke of oxen” in 1 Samuel 11:7, the pair of oxen with which he hadbeen ploughing.

When the report of the messengers had been communicated to him, “theSpirit of Jehovah came upon him, and his anger was kindled greatly,” sc.,at the shame which the Ammonites had resolved to bring upon all Israel.

1 Samuel 11:7

He took a yoke of oxen, cut them in pieces, and sent (the pieces)into every possession of Israel by messengers, and said, “Whoever comethnot forth after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.” Theintroduction of Samuel's name after that of Saul, is a proof that Saul evenas king still recognised the authority which Samuel possessed in Israel asthe prophet of Jehovah. This symbolical act, like the cutting up of thewoman in Judges 19:29, made a deep impression. “The fear of Jehovah fellupon the people, so that they went out as one man.” By “the fear ofJehovah” we are not to understand δεῖμα πανικόν (Thenius andBöttcher), for Jehovah is not equivalent to Elohim, nor the fear of Jehovahin the sense of fear of His punishment, but a fear inspired by Jehovah. InSaul's energetic appeal the people discerned the power of Jehovah, whichinspired them with fear, and impelled them to immediate obedience.

1 Samuel 11:8

Saul held a muster of the people of war, who had gatheredtogether at (or near) Bezek, a place which was situated, according to theOnom. (s. v. Bezek), about seven hours to the north of Nabulus towardsBeisan (see at Judges 1:4). The number assembled were 300,000 men ofIsrael, and 30,000 of Judah. These numbers will not appear too large, if webear in mind that the allusion is not to a regular army, but that Saul hadsummoned all the people to a general levy. In the distinction drawnbetween the children of Judah and the children of Israel we may alreadydiscern a trace of that separation of Judah from the rest of the tribes,which eventually led to a formal secession on the part of the latter.

1 Samuel 11:9

The messengers from Jabesh, who had been waiting to see theresult of Saul's appeal, were now despatched with this message to theirfellow-citizens: “To-morrow you will have help, when the sun shineshot,” i.e., about noon.

1 Samuel 11:10

After receiving these joyful news, the Jabeshites announced tothe Ammonites: “To-morrow we will come out to you, and ye may do tous what seemeth good to you,” - an untruth by which they hoped to assurethe besiegers, so that they might be fallen upon unexpectedly by theadvancing army of Saul, and thoroughly beaten.

1 Samuel 11:11

The next day Saul arranged the people in three divisions(ראשׁים, as in Judges 7:16), who forced their way into the camp ofthe foe from three different sides, in the morning watch (between three andsix o'clock in the morning), smote the Ammonites “till the heat of the day,”and routed them so completely, that those who remained were allscattered, and there were not two men left together.

Renewal of the Monarchy. - Saul had so thoroughly acted the part of a kingin gaining this victory, and the people were so enthusiastic in his favour,that they said to Samuel, viz., after their return from the battle, “Who is hethat said, Saul should reign over us!” The clause עלינוּ ימלך שׁאוּל contains a question, though it is indicatedsimply by the tone, and there is no necessity to alter שׁאוּל intoהשׁאוּל. These words refer to the exclamation of the worthless peoplein 1 Samuel 10:27. “Bring the men (who spoke in this manner), that we mayput them to death.” But Saul said, “There shall not a man be put to deaththis day; for to-day Jehovah hath wrought salvation in Israel;” and provedthereby not only his magnanimity, but also his genuine piety.

(Note: “Not only signifying that the public rejoicing should not beinterrupted, but reminding them of the clemency of God, and urgingthat since Jehovah had shown such clemency upon that day, that Hehad overlooked their sins, and given them a glorious victory, it wasonly right that they should follow His example, and forgive theirneighbours' sins without bloodshed.” - Seb. Schmidt.)

Samuel turned this victory to account, by calling upon the people to gowith him to Gilgal, and there renew the monarchy. In what the renewalconsisted is not clearly stated; but it is simply recorded in 1 Samuel 11:15 that “they(the whole people) made Saul king there before the Lord in Gilgal.” Manycommentators have supposed that he was anointed afresh, and appeal toDavid's second anointing (2 Samuel 2:4 and 2 Samuel 5:3). But David's example merelyproves as Seb. Schmidt has correctly observed, that the anointing could berepeated under certain circumstances; but it does not prove that it wasrepeated, or must have been repeated, in the case of Saul. If the ceremonyof anointing had been performed, it would no doubt have been mentioned,just as it is in 2 Samuel 2:4 and 2 Samuel 5:3. But ימלכוּ does not mean“they anointed,” although the lxx have rendered it ἔχρισε Σαμουήλ , according to their own subjective interpretation. The renewal of the monarchy may very well have consisted in nothingmore than a solemn confirmation of the election that had taken place atMizpeh, in which Samuel once more laid before both king and people theright of the monarchy, receiving from both parties in the presence of theLord the promise to observe this right, and sealing the vow by a solemnsacrifice. The only sacrifices mentioned are (zebachim) (shelamim), i.e., peace-offerings. These were thank-offerings, which were always connected witha sacrificial meal, and when presented on joyous occasions, formed a feastof rejoicing for those who took part, since the sacrificial meal shadowedforth a living and peaceful fellowship with the Lord. Gilgal is in allprobability the place where Samuel judged the people every year (1 Samuel 7:16). But whether it was the Gilgal in the plain of the Jordan, or Jiljilia onhigher ground to the south-west of Shiloh, it is by no means easy todetermine. The latter is favoured, apart from the fact that Samuel did notsay “Let us go down,” but simply “Let us go” (cf. 1 Samuel 10:8), by thecircumstance that the solemn ceremony took place after the return fromthe war at Jabesh; since it is hardly likely that the people would have gonedown into the valley of the Jordan to Gilgal, whereas Jiljilia was close bythe road from Jabesh to Gibeah and Ramah.