|
Hushed was the evening hymn;
The temple courts were dark;
The lamp was burning dim
Before the sacred ark;
When suddenly a voice divine
Rang through the silence of the shrine.The old man, meek and mild,
The priest of Israel slept;
His watch the temple child,
The little Levite kept;
And what from Eli’s sense was sealed,
The Lord to Hannah’s son revealed.O give me Samuel’s ear,
The open ear, O Lord,
Alive and quick to hear
Each whisper of thy word,
Like him to answer at thy call
And to obey thee first of all.O give me Samuel’s heart,
A lowly heart, that waits,
Wherein thy house thou art
Or watches at thy gates,
By day and night a heart that still
Moves at the breathing of thy will!O give me Samuel’s mind,
A sweet unmurmuring faith,
Obedient and resigned
To thee in life and death,
That I may read with childlike eyes,
Truths that are hidden from the wise!”
(Hymns [1948], no. 252.)
There is the challenge, for Saul of old and for us today. The contrast between Samuel and Saul is a major focus of this section of the Old Testament. What seems to be the chief difference between Samuel the prophet and Saul the king?
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 1 Samuel 1–15.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
When Elkanah took his wives and their families to Shiloh (where the tabernacle had been located after the tribes conquered Canaan) to offer sacrifices, a peace offering was made. After the fat, kidneys, and other parts were burned, the priest customarily received the breast and right shoulder. The rest of the sacrificial animal was given back to the offerer to be eaten in a special feast. From his part, Elkanah gave portions of the meat to his family. Hannah received either more than the others or else a more choice portion because of Elkanah’s love for her (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:206).
Peninnah, the other wife, “was constantly striving to irritate and vex her, to make her fret—to make her discontented with her lot, because the Lord had denied her children.
“As the whole family went up to Shiloh to the annual festivals, Peninnah had both sons and daughters to accompany her [see v. 4], but Hannah had none; and Peninnah took this opportunity particularly to twit Hannah with her barrenness, by making an ostentatious exhibition of her children.
“She was greatly distressed, because it was a great reproach to a woman among the Jews to be barren; because, say some, every one hoped that the Messiah should spring from her line.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:207.)
In the ancient Middle East, it was customary for certain officials to place a stool or seat in a courtyard or near the gate of the city where they could sit in judgment, hearing cases or complaints. These seats usually had no backs and were placed near a wall or post to provide a backrest. This circumstance would explain why Eli was sitting near a post. It was probably on such a backless seat that Eli was sitting when he heard the news of the death of his sons and fell over backwards, killing himself (see 1 Samuel 4:18).
Hannah’s covenant with the Lord that, if she were given a child, “no razor” would come upon his head seems to be a promise to raise Samuel as a Nazarite, one under a special vow to God never to cut his hair. In Samuel is a great contrast to Samson, the former keeping his Nazarite vows throughout life, becoming a powerful man of God, and the latter violating all his vows, becoming a wretched example of failure to serve God.
When Hannah protested to Eli that she was not a “daughter of Belial” she meant a “worthless or profane person.” Belial means “worthless, someone of evil affiliation.” It is capitalized by the English translators as if it were a title for Satan and is sometimes so used in later books of the Old Testament (see Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:161).
The name Samuel means, in Hebrew, “heard of God” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:25). The name was meant to serve as a lifelong reminder to both Hannah and Samuel of the special circumstances and commitments attendant on his birth.
 |
| Hannah presented her firstborn son to Eli. © Quebecor World Inc. |
“Weaning took place very late among the Israelites. According to [2 Maccabees 7:27], the Hebrew mothers were in the habit of suckling their children for three years. When the weaning had taken place, Hannah would bring her son up to the sanctuary, to appear before the face of the Lord, and remain there forever, i.e. his whole life long. The Levites generally were only required to perform service at the sanctuary from their twenty-fifth to their fiftieth year [see Numbers 8:24–25]; but Samuel was to be presented to the Lord immediately after his weaning had taken place, and to remain at the sanctuary forever, i.e. to belong entirely to the Lord. To this end he was to receive his training at the sanctuary, that at the very earliest waking up of his spiritual susceptibilities he might receive the impressions of the sacred presence of God.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:26.)
Hannah’s prayer shows her to have been a woman with great faith and love for God. The horn (see v. 1) symbolized power and strength. God had given her the power to bear a child. The rock (see v. 2) was a representation of protection. Jesus Christ is the rock or stone of Israel, the protector from evil (see Matthew 21:42–44). In 1 Samuel 2:10 both allusions are combined into one: the Messiah is “the anointed one” who will break all adversaries of the Lord in pieces (the Greek word for Messiah, Christos, also means “the anointed one”). He it was, Hannah said, who would be given strength in that his horn (power) would be exalted before men. This passage is a choice Old Testament reference to the future Messiah and shows that Hannah was blessed with the gift of prophecy.
The people of Hannah’s day did not think the world was flat and sitting on pillars, as some suppose. That superstition was the invention of the Middle Ages. Hannah was using poetic language to show the power of Jehovah.
“Of these offerings, the portion which legally fell to the priest as his share was the heave-leg and wave-breast. And this he was to receive after the fat portions of the sacrifice had been burned upon the altar [see Leviticus 7:30–34]. To take the flesh of the sacrificial animal and roast it before this offering had been made, was a crime which was equivalent to a robbery of God. . . . Moreover, the priests could not claim any of the flesh which the offerer of the sacrifice boiled for the sacrificial meal, after burning the fat portions upon the altar and giving up the portions which belonged to them, to say nothing of their taking it forcibly out of the pots while it was being boiled [see 1 Samuel 2:12–17]. Such conduct as this on the part of the young men (the priests’ servants), was a great sin in the sight of the Lord, as they thereby brought the sacrifice of the Lord into contempt.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:35–36.)
The poor example of the priests caused others in Israel to abhor “the offering of the Lord” (v. 17). But these actions were not all, for the sons of Eli seduced women and engaged in adulterous acts at the very door of the tabernacle, evidently by misusing their office of priest to entice the women (see v. 22). Under the law of Moses, willful disobedience to parents was punishable by death, and the parents were obliged to see that the punishment was carried out (see Reading 20-9). Hophni and Phinehas compounded their already serous sins by disobeying their father, and Eli failed in his parental responsibility as well as in his office as the presiding priest. Although he rebuked his sons, he took no action to see that the abomination in his family and at the tabernacle was corrected. Therefore, “a man of God” (some unnamed prophet) came to Eli and pronounced the Lord’s curse upon Eli’s house because “[thou] honourest thy sons above me” (vv. 27, 29). That is, Eli’s relationship with his sons was of more value to him than his relationship with God.
The word precious as used here means “scarce.” The word of God was seldom heard in all the land. Elder Harold B. Lee explained why as follows: “The story commences with a significant statement.
“‘And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.’ (I Samuel 3:1) . . . That means that there was no prophet upon the earth through whom the Lord could reveal his will, either by personal experience, or by revelation. And it came to pass that Eli was laid down in his place and his eyes were dim, and Samuel the boy also lay down to his sleep, and you remember through that night there came a call, ‘Samuel,’ and thinking that Eli had called him he went to Eli’s room to be told that Eli had not called him. And he lay down the second time again to be called, and yet the third time. And by this time Eli, sensing the fact that he was being spoken to by an unseen speaker, said, ‘The next time that you hear, then you shall answer, “Here I am Lord, speak to me.”’ And so the next time when the call came, Samuel answered as he had been directed. Now it says, ‘Samuel (up to this time) did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord revealed unto him.’ And after he had recognized the Lord and said, ‘Thy servant heareth,’ then he was told that the Lord was to proceed to ‘do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of everyone that heareth it, shall tingle.’ And then he explained the reason why Eli could not receive further messages from the Lord. ‘His sons make themselves vile, and he restrained them not,’ or in other words he allowed his sons to curse God and therefore were leading the people of Israel astray.” (“But Arise and Stand upon Thy Feet”—and I Will Speak with Thee, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, Provo, 7 Feb. 1956, p. 2.)
“You need have no fear that when one of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ delivers a prophecy in the name of Jesus Christ, because he is inspired to do that, that it will fall by the wayside. I know of more than one prophecy, which, looking at it naturally, seemed as though it would fall to the ground as year after year passed. But lo and behold, in the providences of the Lord, that prophecy was fulfilled.” (Grant, Gospel Standards, p. 68.)
These chapters deal with Israel’s loss of the ark of God to the Philistines. (See the accompanying map to locate most of the places mentioned in these chapters.) The Israelites viewed the ark as the visible symbol of the presence of God, but bringing the ark from Shiloh on this occasion was a demonstration of Israel’s state of spiritual wickedness rather than a demonstration of their faith.
 |
| The loss and return of the ark of the covenant [click for scalable version] |
“They vainly supposed that the ark could save them, when the God of it had departed from them because of their wickedness. They knew that in former times their fathers had been beaten by their enemies, when they took not the ark with them to battle; as in the case of their wars with the Canaanites, [see Numbers 14:44–45]; and that they had conquered when they took this with them, as in the case of the destruction of Jericho, [see Joshua 6:4]. From the latter clause they took confidence; but the cause of their miscarriage in the former they laid not to heart.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:219.)
Great disaster followed the appearance of the ark among the troops because of Israel’s wickedness. Israel suffered a resounding defeat, Hophni and Phinehas were slain, and the ark was captured. News of the capture of the ark and of the death of his sons caused Eli such consternation that he lost his balance on his seat (see Reading 24-4), fell over backwards, and died, thus fulfilling the prophecy that his house would come to a tragic end (see 1 Samuel 2:27–36).
Dagon was one of the gods of the Philistines (see Reading F-7). Since the Philistines believed that Dagon had given them victory over Israel, the ark was brought into Dagon’s temple and deposited at his feet as a war trophy.
 |
| Thought to be Dagon, the fish god |
Because the word translated emerod means “an inflamed tumor,” many have assumed that the Philistines were smitten with hemorrhoids and thus were motivated to send the ark back to Israel. The description of the effects of the emerods on the Philistines suggests something far more serious than hemorrhoids, however, although that ailment can be very painful. Many died, and those who did not seem to have endured great suffering (see 1 Samuel 5:10–12).
Josephus indicated that it was “a very destructive disease” involving dysentery, bleeding, and severe vomiting (see Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 6, chap. 1, par. 1). Josephus also mentioned a great plague of mice that accompanied the disease. Although no direct mention is made of the plague of rodents, when the Philistines sought to placate Jehovah’s wrath upon them by returning the ark, they sent five golden emerods and five golden mice as well (see 1 Samuel 6:4).
The severity of the disease and the fact that rodents were involved lead many scholars to conclude that what smote the Philistines was bubonic plague. Bubonic plague gets its name from the buboes, or tumorous swellings, in the lymph glands. These tumors settle particularly in the area of the groin. This fact would explain the “secret parts” mentioned in 1 Samuel 5:9. It is well known that rats and mice are the main carriers of this disease, for the fleas that transmit the disease to man live on rodents. The disease is accompanied by great suffering and pain, and the fatality rate may run as high as 70 percent in a week’s time. (See Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, s.v., “medicine,” p. 598; Douglas, New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “emerods,” p. 368.) Small wonder that the Philistines were anxious to return the ark to Israel.
The ancient Philistines were very superstitious. They, like many others during the world’s history, believed that an image made to represent an actual object might be used to ward off evil powers. Such appears to have been their thinking in making golden images of the emerods and the mice and sending them as a “trespass offering” (v. 8) with the ark back to Israelite territory.
“Concerning the men of Beth-shemesh who were smitten for sacrilege, the Hebrew account says, ‘And he smote among the people seventy men, fifty thousand men. . . .’ It is not a proper Hebrew expression for 50,070. The ‘fifty thousand men’ appears to be an added phrase, or gloss. The septuagint and Josephus both have merely ‘seventy men.’” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:163.)
Exactly what they did to bring the curse upon them is not clear. If it was merely looking upon the ark, then one wonders why all were not smitten. Bible scholars have indicated that the Hebrew word translated looked actually means “to look upon or at a thing with lust or malicious pleasure” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:69). Remembering that the lid of the ark with the cherubim on it was solid gold and the ark itself was covered with gold plating (see Exodus 25:10–18), it is possible that these residents of Beth-shemesh looked upon the ark with covetous eyes, or at least upon the golden emerods and mice that were sent with it.
But whatever the specific reason for the deaths, the lesson was clear. The ark of the covenant was a physical symbol of the living presence of Jehovah. Any unholiness, whether Philistine or Israelite, was not to be tolerated.
Here again the remarkable contrast between Samuel and Samson is evident. Both were born of barren women through miraculous intervention; both were to be Nazarites for life. Samson, despite tremendous physical strength, did not throw off the power of the Philistines because he did not dedicate himself to the Lord. Samuel, on the other hand, did free Israel from the oppression of the Philistines because he had great spiritual strength and power.
“Thearchy or theocracy is government by the immediate direction of God through his ministers and representatives. A state governed in this manner is called theocracy. This was the original earthly government, Adam serving as the great presiding high priest through whom the laws of the Lord, both temporal and spiritual, were revealed and administered. This type of government apparently continued among the righteous portion of mankind from the days of Adam to Enoch and the taking of Zion to the Lord’s bosom.
“The great patriarchs after the flood—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others—appear to have had this type of government. Righteous portions of the Jareditish peoples were undoubtedly governed on this system. Certainly ancient Israel in the days of Moses and the judges operated on a theocratic basis, and the same system prevailed among the Nephite portion of Lehi’s descendants during most of their long history. When Christ comes to reign personally on earth during the millennial era, a perfect theocratic government will prevail. (D. & C. 38:20–22; 58:20–22.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 789.)
This type of government was the ideal. During the reign of the judges, however, the wickedness of the people in general and of certain leaders in particular largely invalidated the theocratic form of government.
Samuel’s sons set a poor example to the people. They turned aside from the religious truths they had learned in their youth. They used their judgeships to seek monetary gain, betraying their sacred trusts by taking bribes and giving perverted judgments. But, even more than this, the Israelites as a people had become weak and sinful and were envious of surrounding kingdoms, even though their governments were wicked and oppressive. So they used Samuel’s sons as an excuse to justify their desire to be governed by the same system as the gentile nations.
“The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since the source of all the evils and misfortunes from which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obstinacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:78.)
The Lord Himself said to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (v. 7).
Samuel warned the Israelites of three principal evils of a kingly form of government: excessive taxation (see vv. 15, 17), conscription of the labor force (see vv. 11–13, 16), and seizure of private lands (see vv. 14–15). In discussing the matter, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:
“The system of kingly government itself, no matter how talented or noble an individual occupant of the throne may be, does not make the best form of government, one in which the instinctive and automatic concern of government is to look after the best interests of the body of the people. It is inherent in the nature of even the best and most ideal kingly systems that special privilege and questionable adulation be heaped upon those in the ruling class. . . .
“It is true that the Lord on occasions, in the pre-Christian Era, administered righteous and theocratic government through kings, but no such approved kingly government has existed among men for some 2000 years. Such a system, in which the king is the Lord’s representative, is patterned after the true kingdom of God and is proper government, but even then the moment an unrighteous king gains the throne, the blessings and freedoms of such a system die out. As King Mosiah said, ‘Because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!’ (Mosiah 29.) Pending the day in which He shall again reign, whose right it is, the saints are obliged to be subject to the powers that be.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 414–15.)
The scriptures indicate that “there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he” (v. 2). The word goodly seems to indicate many of the qualities that made Saul a logical candidate to be Israel’s first king. All that the Bible reveals indicates that Saul was honest, reliable, considerate of his parents, and altogether a very promising person for the great task ahead.
Goodly also described Saul’s physical attributes. In this regard, Saul was potentially the hero and man of valour all Israel sought. He was about a foot taller than those of his generation. Yet subsequent events show that the Lord was teaching Israel a lesson about people and about kings when He chose Saul. For the Lord certainly knew the end of this thing from the beginning, as He does in all things. Though Saul had, at first, a great regard for the law of Moses and for God, yet “the consciousness of his own power, coupled with the energy of his character, led him astray into an incautious disregard of the commands of God; his zeal in the prosecution of his plans hurried him on to reckless and violent measures; and success in his undertakings heightened his ambition into a haughty rebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:79.)
A seer is one who has the ability to see the future—he is literally a “see-er.” As explained in the Book of Mormon, seers are men who possess the power to “know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come” (Mosiah 8:17). They do this in some cases with the aid of the Urim and Thummim. The possession of these instruments in ancient times made a righteous man a seer (see Mosiah 8:13–18; 28:10–16). It is in this connection, then, that a seer is greater than a prophet (see Mosiah 8:15). The means by which Samuel identified Saul is evidence of Samuel’s gift of seership. Members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are sustained and ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators.
This verse may be taken to mean that Saul, as the king-to-be, was the embodiment of what Israel desired even though as yet they did not know he would be their king. It also could mean, however, that his size, comeliness, and other qualities were well known and that his name was being talked about as one possibility for king.
Anointing with oil in priesthood service is as old as Adam. And, since the Lord set up the kingdom of Israel and revealed the laws that were to govern their kings, it was altogether fitting that these kings be anointed with oil.
“Anointing with oil was a symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God; as the oil itself, by virtue of the strength which it gives to the vital spirits, was a symbol of the Spirit of God as the principle of divine and spiritual power [see Leviticus 8:12]. Hitherto there had been no other anointing among the people of God than that of the priests and sanctuary [see Exodus 30:23–38; Leviticus 8:10–36]. When Saul, therefore, was consecrated as king by anointing, the monarchy was inaugurated as a divine institution, . . . through which henceforth the Lord would also bestow upon His people the gifts of His Spirit for the building up of His kingdom. As the priests were consecrated by anointing to be the media of the ethical blessings of divine grace for Israel, so the king was consecrated by anointing to be the vehicle and medium of all the blessings of grace which the Lord, as the God-king, would confer upon His people through the institution of a civil government. Through this anointing, which was performed by Samuel under the direction of God, the king was set apart from the rest of the nation as ‘anointed of the Lord.’” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:95.)
But Samuel anointed Saul to be “captain” even though he was later called king (see 1 Samuel 10:1). This title should have served as a reminder that the Lord was still king.
Several books are mentioned in the Old Testament which are not a part of the present canon of scripture. Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:
“Reference is made in both the Old and New Testaments to books and epistles which are not now available. These include: Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:4, 7); Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); A Book of Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25); Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41); Books of Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29); Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15); Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34); Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah (2 Chron. 26:22); Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); an epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16); Epistle of Jude (Jude 3); and the Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 14).” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 454.)
Certainly the standard works do not contain all that God has ever spoken to His children, and those who say that the Bible is all there is are mistaken. The Book of Mormon itself does not contain “even a hundredth part” of all that Mormon had at his disposal to make his abridgment (3 Nephi 5:8; see also vv. 9–11).
Nahash, king of the Ammonites, and his army attacked the tribes on the east of the Jordan. No doubt he intended to enforce the claim to a part of Gilead asserted by his ancestor in the time of Jephthah (see Judges 11:13). In desperation, the men of Jabesh-gilead appealed for help from the tribes west of the Jordan. Even though Saul had been officially appointed king, the tribes seem still to have remained in their independent and self-governed state. Some even seem to have rejected Saul as king (see 1 Samuel 11:12). At this critical time Saul was at his finest. He slew his oxen and sent the pieces thereof to every tribe to dramatize that this crisis called for a united Israel (see v. 7). He joined his authority with that of Samuel in the message. Under this leadership, the armies of Israel dealt a stunning defeat to the Ammonites, and Saul gave all credit to the Lord (see v. 13). The victory provided the catalyst for uniting the tribes into one nation for the first time. So strong was the support for Saul that some suggested that those who had earlier questioned his right to rule be put to death. Saul rejected this proposal.
The ceremony at Gilgal was a wise move on Samuel’s part and helped formalize the popular acceptance of Saul after his great victory.
 |
| Saul’s campaign [click for scalable version] |
This chapter contains Samuel’s testimony of the manner in which the Lord had blessed Israel from the first. Samuel reminded the people that the Lord had always been just in His dealings with them and told them that they should likewise deal justly with one another. He then recalled the times when Israel had forgotten the Lord and experienced great calamity. He urged them to serve the Lord lest an even greater calamity overtake them.
The Bible says that there were thirty thousand chariots, but this figure is believed to be an error in transcription. One prominent Bible scholar discussed the problem and gave the opinion that the correct figure is three thousand (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:247). Errors of this sort arose out of translation problems and perhaps also the exaggeration of later scribes who took it upon themselves to add to the record, thinking that they were adding to the glory of Israel. (For further information, see Enrichment Section E, “The Problem of Large Numbers in the Old Testament.”)
It was not long before Saul began to have an exaggerated opinion of his power and importance. This tendency is natural to men who forget the Lord and trust in themselves. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39). It is true that this was a time of great crisis. The Philistines were amassed in great strength and the people were deserting from Saul’s army (see 1 Samuel 13:6). When Samuel was late in coming, Saul took things into his own hands and offered the sacrifices. This action was a great sin.
“Think also of Saul who had been called from the field to be made king of the nation. When the Philistines were marshalled against Israel in Michmash, Saul waited for Samuel, under whose hand he had received his kingly anointing and to whom he had looked in the days of his humility for guidance; he asked that the prophet come and offer sacrifices to the Lord in behalf of the people. But, growing impatient at Samuel’s delay, Saul prepared the burnt offering himself, forgetting that though he occupied the throne, wore the crown, and bore the scepter, these insignia of kingly power gave him no right to officiate even as a deacon in the Priesthood of God; and for this and other instances of his unrighteous presumption he was rejected of God and another was made king in his place.” (Talmage, Articles of Faith, pp. 184–85.)
The circumstances were critical, but one of the purposes of mortality is to demonstrate that one will remain faithful and obedient under all circumstances (see D&C 98:14–15). Saul failed that test and thereby lost his right to be God’s representative of the people.
Scholars believe that at this time the Israelites did not know how to work with iron. The Philistines guarded the secret carefully to maintain superiority in weapons over the softer brass weapons of the Israelites. As a result, the Israelites did not have the superior chariots of iron, nor could they manufacture swords and spears of iron. The other instruments mentioned, “share,” “coulter,” “axe,” “mattock,” and “goad,” had to be taken to the Philistines for sharpening. A share was a metal instrument used to plough the ground, and a coulter was a small garden hoe used to loosen the earth and weed the soil. A mattock was an Egyptian hoe or grubbing axe, and a goad was a sharp rod about eight feet long used to prod stubborn animals.
In the armies of ancient times, certain men were assigned to go out and destroy crops, homes, barns, cattle, and so forth. Their prime purpose was not to take human life, but to make living difficult for the civilian population who supported the military (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:249).
These verses give insights into the character of Jonathan, son of Saul, a young man of great faith in God (see vv. 6, 10). The venture into the Philistine camp was not foolhardy but was based on faith and courage.
Saul again foolishly sought to win a battle against the Philistines by attempting to gain the Lord’s intervening power in an unapproved way. The courageous attack of Jonathan and his armor-bearer on the camp of the Philistines suddenly altered the circumstances of the battle. The Philistines were thrown into disarray, and even the men who had hid themselves came forth now to join the battle (see v. 22).
In the heat of the battle, Saul had compelled his men to swear with an oath that they would fast all that day. This restriction put the men in distress, for their fasting added the weakness of hunger to the fatigue of battle. (See v. 24.)
“This command of Saul did not proceed from a proper attitude towards the Lord, but was an act of false zeal, in which Saul had more regard to himself and his own kingly power than to the cause of the kingdom of Jehovah, as we may see at once from the expression . . . ‘till I have avenged myself upon mine enemies.’” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:142.)
Two unfortunate incidents resulted from Saul’s command to fast. First, Jonathan, who had been in the camp of the Philistines at the time Saul made his army swear not to eat, violated the oath by partaking of some wild honey (see vv. 25–27). When told about the oath, Jonathan frankly said that his father had done a foolish thing. Since his own strength had been revived by the food, he wondered aloud how much greater the victory would have been if the people had been allowed to eat instead of fighting in a state of physical exhaustion (see vv. 28–30).
The second unfortunate incident occurred later that same day when the people, faint with hunger, fell upon the animals captured from the Philistines and “did eat them with the blood” (v. 32). The animals were not properly killed to drain out their blood, which violated the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 17:10–14).
Saul immediately sought to make atonement for this violation by offering sacrifices to the Lord (see vv. 33–35). But when he sought revelation from the Lord about whether to go against the Philistines, no answer came (see vv. 36–37). Saul concluded that some other sin of the people was the cause of the lack of response from the Lord. He then directed that all the people be gathered together to meet him and Jonathan, swearing with an oath that the guilty party would be put to death. To dramatize his determination to carry through with his threat, Saul indicated he would even put his own son to death if he were proven guilty (see v. 39), quite unaware that it was indeed Jonathan who would be facing death.
“What Jonathan had done was not wrong in itself, but became so simply on account of the oath with which Saul had forbidden it. But Jonathan did not hear the oath, and therefore had not even consciously transgressed. . . . In the present instance, Saul had issued the prohibition without divine authority, and had made it obligatory upon the people by a solemn oath. The people had conscientiously obeyed the command, but Jonathan had transgressed it without being aware of it. For this Saul was about to punish him with death, in order to keep his oath. But the people opposed it. They not only pronounced Jonathan innocent, because he had broken the king’s command unconsciously, but they also exclaimed that he had gained the victory for Israel ‘with God.’ In this fact (Jonathan’s victory) there was a divine verdict. And Saul could not fail to recognise now, that it was not Jonathan, but he himself, who had sinned, and through his arbitrary and despotic command had brought guilt upon Israel, on account of which God had given him no reply.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:146–47.)
The Amalekites were old Israelite enemies, and their punishment had long been foretold (see Exodus 17:8–16; Deuteronomy 25:17–19). Saul’s failure to carry out the word of God with exactness and honor caused the Lord to reject him as the king of Israel (see vv. 11, 26). (Note: The references to the Lord’s repenting [vv. 11, 35] were corrected by the Prophet Joseph Smith; see JST, 1 Samuel 15:29.) Saul’s excuse that he had saved the best to sacrifice was simply not acceptable, even if it were true. As Samuel said, “To obey is better than sacrifice. . . . For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (2 Samuel 15:22–23). The root of Saul’s problem is here revealed (see v. 17). Saul had been called because of his humility (“thou wast little in thine own sight”; v. 17); now he trusted in his own wisdom and did not look to God.
Saul’s repentance (see vv. 24–25) was too late and very short-lived. This second violation was essentially the same sin of disobedience he had been guilty of before (see 1 Samuel 13:8–14). Had Saul’s repentance been deep and sincere, the second incident would never have happened. As the Lord warned in modern times, “But unto that soul who sinneth [after the Lord has forgiven him] shall the former sins return” (D&C 82:7).
(24-36) The Old Testament provides many remarkable contrasts and practical lessons. Answer the following questions as you consider the lives of the people discussed in this part of the Old Testament:
1. Peninnah, the other wife of Elkanah, probably sensed her husband’s special love for Hannah and resented it. Perhaps that is why she kept reminding Hannah of her barrenness and “provoked her” (1 Samuel 1:7). One can sympathize with Peninnah’s jealousy, but could she have been in any way responsible for the situation with her husband? Would it have been easier to love Hannah or Peninnah? Have you ever been guilty of blaming someone else for problems that lie at least partly within yourself? What kind of counsel would you have given Peninnah in this situation?
2. What are the first indications that Eli had lost the power of discernment? (see 1 Samuel 1:12–14). Is it unfair to suppose that Eli should have been able to discern that Hannah was not a drunken woman? Read Doctrine and Covenants 46:27 before answering. As high priest, Eli was the equivalent of the Presiding Bishop today. Does this modern-day scripture apply to him?
3. King Benjamin taught that if one seeks to repay the debt he owes to God by living righteously, one is further blessed for his obedience and thus can never repay God (see Mosiah 2:23–24). How was this principle true of Hannah? (see 1 Samuel 1:24–28; 2:21).
4. In modern times, the Lord warned some leaders of the Church that certain problems in their spiritual lives were traceable to their family problems. Read Doctrine and Covenants 93:38–50. How does this counsel apply to Eli?
5. How was Eli’s sin in tolerating the wickedness of Hophni and Phinehas compounded by the fact that he was both their father and the high priest? Read Leviticus 21:9–23; Deuteronomy 21:18–21.
6. It is obvious that Eli did not condone the evil behavior of his sons (see 1 Samuel 2:22–24). What, then, was his problem and why did the Lord curse him and his family? (see 1 Samuel 2:29; 3:13).
7. Have you ever asked yourself, Why Samuel? Why not Eli? Eli was also in the house that night when the Lord spoke, as undoubtedly were Phinehas and Hophni. Would they have understood the voice if they had heard it? How is this situation similar to that of Laman and Lemuel? (see 1 Nephi 17:45).
8. Elder Harold B. Lee reminded us that a certain amount of spiritual preparation is necessary before we can receive divine communications. He said, “The Lord will bring us his blessings to that extent that we have diligence in keeping his commandments. Each of you, in other words, must stand on your own feet if you will receive the great blessings which the Almighty has in store for you. . . .
“Stand upon your own feet, so the Lord can speak to you. In humility be prepared to say with Paul, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me do?’ And with dauntless courage say with the boy Samuel ‘Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth.’ Be humble, be prayerful and the Lord will take you by the hand, as it were, and give you answer to your prayers.” (“But Arise and Stand upon Thy Feet”—and I Will Speak with Thee, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, Provo, 7 Feb. 1956, pp. 7, 11.)
What evidence do you find in 1 Samuel 3–8 that Samuel did more than just hear the Lord that night in the tabernacle? Note Elder Lee’s first sentence. Do you find that requirement in Samuel’s life? (see 1 Samuel 12:1–5).
9. How were Saul and Samuel alike in their early years? (see 1 Samuel 9:2, 21; 10:6, 9–13). What made the difference later? (see especially 1 Samuel 13:13–14; 15:17).
 |
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
Now is the time to show;
We ask it fearlessly:
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
(Hymns, no. 260.)
David’s actions showed that his answer to such a question would have been a hearty “I am!” Arriving at the battlefront at a time when the haughty giant Goliath had openly challenged Israel to send a man to fight him, David boldly volunteered to accept Goliath’s challenge. When accused of pride, the future king of Israel asked his oldest brother, “Is there not a cause?” (1 Samuel 17:29).
Many young people of today are great joiners. They attach themselves to this or that organization or group because they wish to make the world a better place. They need a purpose for living, a reason to be—they need a cause.
Young David, shepherd boy of Israel, had a cause. And this cause was emphasized when Samuel, the Lord’s prophet, anointed David to be a future king of Israel. Throughout his early life, David stayed close to the Lord. In all his military ventures, in the face of threats against his life, and despite numerous opportunities to slay Saul, David was true to his chosen cause. “And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord was with him” (1 Samuel 18:14).
And what of today? Have we a cause? Indeed we have! We found that cause when we gained our testimonies of the true gospel and of the value of citizenship in the kingdom of God.
“I declare with all my soul—there is a cause! It is a cause worth giving one’s life for. It is the cause of righteousness. It is a cause that every youth in this Church should rally to as he declares war on Satan and his legions. As David said to Goliath, so each youth should declare to Satan, ‘Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield; but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.’ (1 Sam. 17:45.)” (Victor L. Brown, “Is There Not a Cause?” Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 104.)
There is a cause! That cause is the Lord’s!
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 1 Samuel 16–31.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
There verses contain the Lord’s directions to His prophet in the selection of a new king. Note the Lord’s special counsel in verse 7. Mortals tend to see the outward appearance, but the Lord has the power to look to the very depths of men and things. The “horn of oil” was probably a ram’s horn filled with olive oil and used to anoint those chosen of the Lord (v. 13; see also v. 1).
Evil spirits are not sent by God, nor does God give revelations through the evil spirits which sometimes trouble men. He cast these evil spirits out of heaven long ago for their rebellion against Him. The Joseph Smith Translation corrects this passage to say, “An evil spirit which was not of the Lord troubled him” (JST, 1 Samuel 16:14; emphasis added). Recorded here are the first effects of Saul’s rejection of the Lord. More and more Saul failed to find peace with himself until at last he became a miserable, guilt-ridden man.
 |
| The Valley of Elah |
Descending from the hill country of Judah toward the Mediterranean Sea are numerous valleys or wadis. One of these is the Valley of Elah, in which David’s battle with Goliath occurred near Azekah in the Shephelah or low-lying hills (see 1 Samuel 17:1). The accompanying map shows the Valley of Elah almost directly west and a little south of Jerusalem.
 |
| Azekah in the Valley of Elah [click for scalable version] |
“Our word champion comes from campus, the field; . . . ‘Champion is he, properly, who fights in the field; i.e., in camps.’ A man well skilled in arms, strong, brave, and patriotic.
“But is this the meaning of the original . . . ish habbenayim, a middle man, the man between two; that is, as here, the man who undertakes to settle the disputes between two armies or nations. So our ancient champions settled disputes between contending parties by what was termed camp fight; hence the campio or champion.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:261.)
Although it seems peculiar in this day of modern warfare, in ancient times it was not unusual for opposing armies, which were generally quite small, to select one representative from each side to fight a personal contest. The outcome of that contest determined the winner of the battle. (Compare this verse with 2 Samuel 2:12–17, in which is recorded a similar choosing of representatives to battle for each side.
According to this passage, Goliath’s height was six cubits and a span. The most widely accepted opinion of the length of a cubit is about eighteen inches or, roughly, the distance from the elbow to the tip of the extended middle finger. A span is said to be one-half the distance from the thumb to the end of the little finger when the fingers are spread as wide as possible. These measurements would make the height of Goliath approximately nine feet, nine inches! It is not too surprising that the Philistines would have picked such a champion or that no man in Israel wanted to be Saul’s champion.
It is unusual that anyone today is over seven feet tall, but it is commonly believed there were men in ancient times whose height far exceeded seven feet. There are references in the scriptures to giants in the earlier periods of history: in the time of Enoch (see Moses 7:15), in the days of Noah (see Moses 8:18; Genesis 6:4), and in the time of the Israelites (see Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:10–11; Joshua 15:8). Called Anakim (meaning “long-necked” or “tall” in Hebrew) by the Israelites, this race of giants seems to have been virtually destroyed in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua (see Joshua 11:21). In fact, it is recorded that none of the Anakim were left except in Gaza, Ashdod, and Gath (see Joshua 11:22), which was Goliath’s hometown (see 1 Samuel 17:4).
Experts have estimated the weight of Goliath’s armor to be about 150 pounds (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:261). A weaver’s beam is a strong, thick piece of wood on which thread is strung in preparation for weaving. The weight of Goliath’s spearhead has been estimated from twelve to twenty-six pounds, depending on which authority is consulted and what weight he selects for a shekel. (See the table on weights and measures in Maps and Charts.) A greave is a protective piece of armor that fits on the front of the leg and extends from just below the knee to the ankle.
These verses are a brief flashback that bring young David into the story once again. Even though he was Saul’s armor-bearer, young David, unlike the fighting men, was evidently permitted to leave the battlefield and return home from time to time.
The ephah was a dry measure roughly equivalent to three fifths of a United States bushel, or about 22 liters. (See the table on weights and measures in Maps and Charts.)
The story of David and Goliath is so well known that some readers take David’s courage for granted. But his courage was not born of self-confidence alone, although he did believe in his own skills in battle. As a young shepherd, he had much practice at slinging stones. It was an effective way both to keep wolves and other vicious animals away from the sheep and to attract the attention of straying sheep and drive them back to pasture. As a result of his experience, David had confidence in his skills, but the true source of his courage was faith in the power of the living God. In fact, the contrast between David and the other Israelites was as great in terms of faith as in courage. David was incensed that “this uncircumcised Philistine [one not of the covenant but of the world] . . . should defy the armies of the living God” (v. 26). There was no similar anger in the men of Israel, only a quaking fear because of Goliath’s size and strength. And David’s answer to Goliath’s laugh of derision at the unprotected boy who came out to accept the challenge provides a classic study in faith as well as in courage. “Thou comest to me,” he said to Goliath, “with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts. . . . This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand, . . . that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. . . . for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hands” (vv. 45–47).
Shepherds of David’s time carried a sling and a small leather or woolen wallet or bag in which food or stones could be carried to the place where the sheep grazed. In the King James Version of the Bible, this bag is called a scrip. When Jesus sent His disciples forth without purse or scrip (see Luke 10:4), they went without a bag in which to keep money or food. David used his shepherd’s scrip to hold the stones he obtained from the brook.
Slings were made from various materials, the most common being leather. Hair, wool, animal sinews, or rushes were used to make the pouch that held the stones. The pouch had strings attached on each side and was whirled until a certain speed was reached. When one string was released, the stone was hurled from the pouch toward its mark. Any variation from perfect roundness affected the accuracy of a stone. Uniform weight and size of the stones were also important. Anciently, slingers, particularly shepherds with time on their hands, developed great accuracy and skill in slinging stones. When not in use, the slings were carried by shepherds around their foreheads or waists.
Slings were used fairly commonly in the ancient Near East. The Israelites, who did not often use chariots in war, employed many trained slingers. The same was true of peoples from surrounding areas.
These verses might lead the reader to conclude that Saul, who had met David before, did not know who he was. Saul’s inquiry of Abner about who David was merely means, “Who is this lad of such skill and courage? Obviously, he does more than play the harp. Who is his father? From what kind of family did he come? Where did he get such courage? Is this really the boy who has been with us all this time?”
Once again weaknesses in Saul’s character began to manifest themselves. He was jealous of David’s newly won popularity (see vv. 6–8, 16). Verse 10 in the Joseph Smith Translation again makes it clear that the evil spirit Saul possessed was not from God.
Saul tried two ways to do away with David (see vv. 10–11; 21–25). But although Saul was jealous of David’s growing popularity with the people, there was no indication yet that he knew that David had been anointed to be his successor.
Although the people of Israel celebrated the prowess of David in warfare, the Lord later indicated that because of his great wars, David was not allowed to build the temple. The privilege was given to his son, Solomon (see 1 Chronicles 22:8).
Jonathan, Saul’s son, was one of the most noble men of ancient Israel. He could have seen David as a threat, as Saul did, since the oldest son generally succeeded to the kingship. But instead, Jonathan assisted David, even helping him to escape from Saul. Truly Jonathan loved David “as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1).
A bolster is a long pillow or cushion used to prop the head or back while a person sleeps. This bolster was stuffed with or made from goat’s hair.
After David escaped from Saul through the help of his wife, Michal, Saul sent messengers to kill him. But David had sought refuge with Samuel in what scholars called “Schools of the Prophets” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:199).These scholars showed that such prophets as Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha conducted special schools that were called here “the company of the prophets” (v. 20). Elsewhere, the men who attended these schools were called “sons of the prophets” (1 Kings 20:35). This fact is of interest to Latter-day Saints because Joseph Smith set up a similar school in Kirtland, Ohio, to help teach priesthood holders their special duties.
When the messengers from Saul and finally Saul himself came, they came under the influence of the Spirit, and thus David’s life was spared. The fact that the people said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (v. 24) is explained this way:
Saul “threw off his royal robes or military dress, retaining only his tunic; and continued so all that day and all that night, uniting with the sons of the prophets in prayers, singing praises, and other religious exercises, which were unusual to kings and warriors; and this gave rise to the saying, Is Saul also among the prophets? By bringing both him and his men thus under a Divine influence, God prevented them from injuring the person of David.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:274.)
This remarkable event has a parallel in latter-day Church history. During his mission to Great Britain, Elder Wilford Woodruff was delivered from the hands of government authorities through the influence of the Spirit.
“When I arose to speak at Brother Benbow’s house, a man entered the door and informed me that he was a constable, and had been sent by the rector of the parish with a warrant to arrest me. I asked him, ‘For what crime?’ He said, ‘For preaching to the people.’ I told him that I, as well as the rector, had a license for preaching the gospel to the people, and that if he would take a chair I would wait upon him after meeting. He took my chair and sat beside me. For an hour and a quarter I preached the first principles of the everlasting gospel. The power of God rested upon me, the spirit filled the house, and the people were convinced. At the close of the meeting I opened the door for baptism, and seven offered themselves. Among the number were four preachers and the constable. The latter arose and said, ‘Mr. Woodruff, I would like to be baptized.’ I told him I would like to baptize him. I went down into the pool and baptized the seven. We then came together. I confirmed thirteen, administered the Sacrament, and we all rejoiced together.
“The constable went to the rector and told him that if he wanted Mr. Woodruff taken for preaching the gospel, he must go himself and serve the writ; for he had heard him preach the only true gospel sermon he had ever listened to in his life. The rector did not know what to make of it, so he sent two clerks of the Church of England as spies, to attend our meeting, and find out what we did preach. They both were pricked in their hearts, received the word of the Lord gladly, and were baptized and confirmed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The rector became alarmed, and did not venture to send anybody else.” (In Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, p. 118.)
David needed to know Saul’s disposition toward him before he could safely remain at court as Saul had ordered (see 1 Samuel 16:22; 18:2). A sacrifice and a feast at every new moon (see v. 5; Numbers 10:10; 28:11) afforded Jonathan a perfect opportunity to inquire into the matter. Jonathan’s brotherly love for David remained firm, even in the face of his father’s wrath.
Saul’s reference to David’s possible uncleanness refers to the requirement in the Mosaic law that one be ceremoniously cleansed, if needs be, before attending a holy feast. He assumed David was absent because he had not been able to meet the ceremonial requirements.
In his anger Saul cursed his wife as being responsible for Jonathan’s rebellious disloyalty in being faithful to David rather than being faithful to his own father. Saul was falling deeper and deeper into evil and withdrawing further and further from the Spirit. Even his own children, first Michal and then Jonathan, supported David because they knew their father’s hatred was unjustified.
Anciently, artillery was any weapon that cast a projectile, in this case, an arrow. Jonathan handed his servant his bow and arrows and told him to return to the city.
Both men were tearful at their parting, but David’s distress exceeded that of Jonathan. Saul had taken David’s wife Michal and given her to another (see 1 Samuel 25:44), and David was now banished from access to the tabernacle and the rituals of sacrifice because he was forced to hide from Saul. He had to live among the Philistines and send his parents to live among the Moabites for protection (see 1 Samuel 22:3–4). Thus, “David’s distress must, in the nature of things, be the greatest. Besides his friend Jonathan, whom he was now about to lose for ever, he lost his wife, relatives, country; and, what was most afflictive, the altars of his God, and the ordinances of religion.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:277.)
These chapters recount the flight of David from King Saul. The map given here shows the locations to which David went seeking safety.
 |
| David eluding Saul [click for scalable version] |
David’s partaking of the shewbread, which was reserved only for the priests (see Reading 13-7), was technically a violation of the Mosaic law. Jesus, however, used this incident to show that in times of dire necessity a breach of the ritual law was not a sin (see Matthew 12:1–8). As Paul said, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).
 |
| Possible site of the cave of Adullam where David hid from Saul |
The constant desertion from Saul to David eventually reached such proportions that David’s army became “a great host, like the host of God,” or Saul’s army (1 Chronicles 12:22; see also 12:1–7, 16–21).
Although the king of Moab was no particular friend to Israel, his primary hatred was of Saul. Thus, the Moabite king gave refuge to David’s parents. David’s arrangement for the safety of his parents was simply a precautionary step in case Saul decided to punish them or torture them into revealing their son’s whereabouts.
Again Saul evidenced weakness, his greatest to date. He murdered innocent persons who knew nothing of his problems with David.
This chapter exhibits an aspect of David’s character that is much to be admired. Although anointed by God’s prophet to be king of Israel, and although Saul constantly sought his life, this chosen servant of the Lord still would not lift his hand against Saul so long as Saul lived (see vv. 5–6). David understood an important priesthood principle, that is, that one has loyalty to those called by the Lord to preside even when they may not function perfectly in their calling. Saul was failing miserably, but David knew that it was the Lord’s responsibility to remove Saul, not his.
The phrase used by David when he threatened the destruction of Nabal is shocking to modern readers. Today the word is used only in profanity, but such was not the case when the King James Version was translated. The phrase was a Hebrew idiom used several times in the Bible that meant “every male” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:242). Thus, David threatened not only to kill Nabal himself but also to destroy completely all that was his. The same idea occurs in modern revelation but without the offensive expression (see D&C 121:15).
Abigail used beautiful images here, one having to do with a bundle and the other with a sling. Abigail was simply saying that David’s life, bound up as it was with God, was precious and would be spared, while the lives of his enemies would be flung from David and from God as a rock is flung from a sling.
This statement was a way of saying that Nabal was terrified to think of what he had narrowly escaped only because David heeded his wife’s plea. He may have suffered a stroke or heart attack because of the shock.
David married two women about this time, Saul having given Michal, David’s first wife, to another man (see v. 4). Although Abigail is mentioned here before Ahinoam, the latter was the mother of David’s oldest son, Amnon, and is always listed first when his wives are named (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:291).
This chapter details David’s second refusal to kill King Saul, although it would have been a simple thing to do. As proof, David took the king’s spear and bottle of water, carried them to the other side of the ravine, and then chided Abner, the king’s captain, for his failure to protect the king. Once again the character of David shone forth. When David said, “The Lord render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness” (v. 23), he was asking the Lord to judge his works as compared to Saul’s works.
“There is a vast deal of dignity in this speech of David, arising from a consciousness of his own innocence. He neither begs his life from Saul, nor offers one argument to prevail upon him to desist from his felonious attempts, but refers the whole matter to God, as the judge and vindicator of oppressed innocence. Saul himself is speechless, except in the simple acknowledgment of his sin; and in the behalf of their king not one of his officers has one word to say! It is strange that none of them offered now to injure the person of David; but they saw that he was most evidently under the guardian care of God, and that their master was apparently abandoned by him. Saul invites David to return, but David knew the uncertainty of Saul’s character too well to trust himself in the power of this infatuated king. How foolish are the counsels of men against God! When he undertakes to save, who can destroy? And who can deliver out of his hands?” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:294.)
From this time on Saul stopped hunting David to seek his life (see 1 Samuel 27:4).
“Whither have ye made a road today” is another way of saying “Where have you been today?” It seems likely that David had been out among the enemies of Israel (see v. 8) and had taken spoils from them to support his army who were with him at Ziklag. Although many commentators condemn this action by David, it should be noted that he was fulfilling God’s commandment given to Moses and Joshua to utterly destroy the Canaanites when Israel first came to the promised land (see Reading 19-15 for the reasons this destruction was required by the Lord).
Mention has been made before of what it meant in ancient Israel to have a familiar spirit (see Reading 16-5). Saul, now devoid of spiritual sensitivity because of his wickedness and unable to get an answer from the Lord “neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets” (v. 6), sought out a medium, a witch, one who claimed to be able to communicate with those in the world of spirits. It was the act of a desperate man.
“Those religionists who attempt and frequently attain communion (as they suppose) with departed spirits are called spiritualists. Their doctrine and belief that mediums and other mortals can actually hold intercourse with the spirits of the dead is called spiritualism. Such communion, if and when it occurs, is manifest by means of physical phenomena, such as so-called spirit-rappings, or during abnormal mental states, such as in trances. These communions are commonly arranged and shown forth through the instrumentality of mediums. . . .
“. . . No matter how sincerely mediums may be deceived into thinking they are following a divinely approved pattern, they are in fact turning to an evil source ‘for the living to hear from the dead.’ Those who are truly spiritually inclined know this by personal revelation from the true Spirit; further, the information revealed from spirits through mediums is not according to ‘the law and to the testimony.’
“. . . In ancient Israel, spiritualistic practices were punishable by death. ‘A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death.’ (Lev. 20:27; Ex. 22:18.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 759–60.)
“The Witch of Endor, . . . instead of being a prophetess of the Lord, was a woman who practiced necromancy; that is, communication or pretended communication with the spirits of the dead; but she was led by a familiar spirit. In other words, she was a spiritual medium, similar to those modern professors of the art, who claim to be under the control of some departed notable, and through him or her to be able to communicate with the dead. It should be observed that in the seance with the king of Israel, Saul did not see Samuel or anybody but the medium or witch. She declared that she saw an old man coming up and that he was covered with a mantle. It was she who told Saul what Samuel was purported to have said. Saul ‘perceived that it was Samuel’ through what the witch stated to him. The conversation that ensued between Samuel and Saul was conducted through the medium. All of this could have taken placed entirely without the presence of the prophet Samuel. The woman, under the influence of her familiar spirit, could have given to Saul the message supposed to have come from Samuel, in the same way that messages from the dead are pretended to be given to the living by spiritual mediums of the latter days, who, as in the case under consideration, perform their work at night or under cover of darkness.
“It is beyond rational belief that such persons could at any period in ancient or modern times, invoke the spirits of departed servants or handmaidens of the Lord. They are not at the beck and call of witches, wizards, diviners, or necromancers. Pitiable indeed would be the condition of spirits in paradise if they were under any such control. They would not be at rest, nor be able to enjoy that liberty from the troubles and labors of earthly life which is essential to their happiness, but be in a condition of bondage, subject to the will and whims of persons who know not God and whose lives and aims are of the earth, earthy.” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:107–8.)
“It has been suggested that in this instance the Lord sent Samuel in the spirit to communicate with Saul, that he might know of his impending doom; but this view does not seem to harmonize with the statements of the case, made in the scripture which gives the particulars. If the Lord desired to impart this information to Saul, why did he not respond when Saul enquired of him through the legitimate channels of divine communication? Saul had tried them all and failed to obtain an answer. Why should the Lord ignore the means he himself established, and send Samuel, a prophet, to reveal himself to Saul through a forbidden source? Why should he employ one who had a familiar spirit for this purpose, a medium which he had positively condemned by his own law?
“‘But,’ it is argued, ‘the prediction uttered by the spirit which was manifested on that occasion was literally fulfilled. Israel was delivered into the hand of the Philistines, and Saul and his three sons and his armor bearer and the men of his staff were all slain. It was therefore a true prophecy.’ Admitting that as perfectly correct, the position taken in this article is not in the least weakened. If the witches, wizards, necromancers and familiar spirits, placed under the ban of the law, did not sometimes foretell the truth there would have been no need to warn the people against consulting them. If the devil never told the truth he would not be able to deceive mankind by his falsehoods. The powers of darkness would never prevail without the use of some light. A little truth mixed with plausible error is one of the means by which they lead mankind astray. There is nothing, then, in the history of the interview between Saul and the woman of Endor which, rationally or doctrinally, establishes the opinion that she was a prophetess of the Lord or that Samuel actually appeared on that occasion.” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:108–9.)
David’s use of the ephod here almost certainly involved the use of the Urim and Thummim. The breastplate of the high priest, which held the Urim and Thummim, was attached to the ephod (see Exodus 28:26–30; Reading 13-13). Thus, David asked the high priest to inquire of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and he got an immediate answer (see 1 Samuel 30:8).
See Enrichment Section F, “Idolatry: Ancient and Modern,” especially Reading F-7.
(25-38) The section of the Old Testament containing the story of Samuel, David, Jonathan, and Saul is so full of modern-day applications, so replete with lessons that span all time, that it is not surprising that modern prophets have returned to it again and again as they speak to Israel today. The following excerpts should be read and pondered carefully as you look for lessons in your own life. You may wish to note things in your journal that are of particular worth to you.
“By referring to Samuel’s experience while choosing a king, we may get a better understanding of the fact that man is not qualified to judge. The Lord had rejected Saul as king of Israel and instructed the prophet Samuel to choose a new king. He told him to go to the house of Jesse, who had eight sons, and that while there the anointed one would pass before him and Samuel would know who was to be chosen. When the first son, Eliab, came before him, Samuel thought he was the chosen one, but the Lord refused him and then gave the prophet Samuel the key as to how to judge:
“‘Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.’ (1 Sam. 16:7.)
“Each of the seven sons then passed before Samuel and was rejected. Then David, the youngest, was sent for and was approved by the Lord.
“The reason, therefore, that we cannot judge is obvious. We cannot see what is in the heart. We do not know motives, although we impute motives to every action we see. They may be pure while we think they are improper.
“It is not possible to judge another fairly unless you know his desires, his faith, and his goals. Because of a different environment, unequal opportunity, and many other things, people are not in the same position. One may start at the top and the other at the bottom, and they may meet as they are going in opposite directions. . . . How can we, with all our weaknesses and frailties, dare to arrogate to ourselves the position of a judge? At best, man can judge only what he sees; he cannot judge the heart or the intention, or begin to judge the potential of his neighbor.” (N. Eldon Tanner, “Judge Not That Ye Be Not Judged,” Ensign, July 1972, p. 35.)
“Remember that every David has a Goliath to defeat, and every Goliath can be defeated. He may not be a bully who fights with fists or sword or gun. He may not even be flesh and blood. He may not be nine feet tall; he may not be armor-protected, but every boy has his Goliaths. And every boy has his sling, and every boy has access to the brook with its smooth stones.
“You will meet Goliaths who threaten you. Whether your Goliath is a town bully or is the temptation to steal or to destroy or the temptation to rob or the desire to curse and swear; if your Goliath is the desire to wantonly destroy or the temptation to lust and to sin, or the urge to avoid activity, whatever is your Goliath, he can be slain. But remember, to be the victor, one must follow the path that David followed:
“‘David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord was with him.’ (1 Sam. 18:14.)” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Davids and the Goliaths,” Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 82.)
The wise person arms himself as David did, not with sling or stone, necessarily, but with faith. While David was trained in stone slinging, his confidence lay in the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies whom Goliath defied. Just so, we too must arm ourselves for our battles.
“I am suggesting that each individual put on the whole armor of God. He will then become an example to others, and many will follow in his footsteps. As each individual does this, he helps form the army that will win the great victory and ultimately prepare the world for the second coming of the Savior.
“In putting on the whole armor of God, we must become acquainted with the Savior. At 14 Joseph Smith, in his quest for knowledge and wisdom, sought the Lord in prayer. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision. He saw two personages, one saying of the other, ‘This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!’ [Joseph Smith—History 1:17.] This was the beginning of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. If we have faith, we can prepare ourselves through prayer and study and gain the same assurance Joseph Smith had that God lives and that he and his Son are separate personages. Jesus of Nazareth then will become the center of our lives. With this assurance, our cause cannot be hindered. Without it, we have no cause.” (Victor L. Brown, “Is There Not a Cause?” Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 104.)
“Now if a man is not the anointed of the Lord we may have a fellow feeling for him, that feeling which human nature teaches, but when a man is the anointed of the Lord, we feel like David did with Saul. David would not lift his hand against Saul, because, said he, he is the anointed of the Lord, but how could they move hand in hand and be one, when they were of a different spirit? There was an opposite spirit in Saul, but yet David would not put forth his hand and slay him, although he had him in his power; he had a respect for him because he was the Lord’s anointed. A man may move on the same car or in the same kingdom, and yet be of a different spirit from another man, and he may pass quietly along for a time, because he is the Lord’s anointed, but still he will not exert himself for the carrying out of the principles of the kingdom, he lies dormant all the time. How can he who is filled with the principles of righteousness and with the love of Jesus love that man? He cannot do it as he desires. We have got to be inspired by the same Spirit and by the same kind of knowledge, in order that we may love one another and be of one heart and one mind.” (Lorenzo Snow, in Journal of Discourses, 4:156.)
 |
“If the Latter-day Saints ever hope to make any headway with the Jewish people, they must stop talking about King David as a tragic, sinful figure, for we view him as one of the great figures of our history.” So spoke a Jewish youth to his Latter-day Saint neighbor.
“Was David a good man?” Ask this question among Old Testament scholars, and you will likely be immediately embroiled in a vigorous debate.
Under David Israel reached its golden age, the zenith of its power. For the first time, under his direction the chosen people controlled the whole land promised to Abraham’s seed nearly a thousand years earlier. Israel had not achieved such heights before, nor did they ever again.
Do we emphasize the David who killed Goliath, or the David who killed Uriah? Should we view him as the servant who refused to lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed, or as the Lord’s anointed who lifted his hand against a faithful and loyal servant? Was his life a tragedy, or a triumph?
If a triumph, why, then, has “he fallen from his exaltation” (D&C 132:39) and lost “the greatest of all the gifts of God”? (D&C 6:13). If a tragedy, why is the Messiah prophesied to sit “upon the throne of David” (Isaiah 9:7), and be called “David their king”? (Jeremiah 30:9; see also 23:5–6; 30:15–17; Ezekiel 37:24–25). Why are we told that Jesus shall receive “the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32) and that He has “the key of David”? (Revelation 3:7).
In this chapter we read of David as king of Israel. We have already seen him as the shepherd boy turned warrior and as the king’s armor-bearer turned king’s outlaw by Saul’s own madness. Then Saul was dead, and David was king in fact as well as name.
Study his life carefully in this chapter and the next to see if you can answer these questions. Is it an injustice to treat David as a tragedy? How shall we view this great man of history?
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 2 Samuel 1–12.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
A careful reading of 1 Samuel 31:1–6 and 2 Samuel 1:1–16 shows two different accounts of Saul’s death. The man who came to David and reported that he had killed Saul at Saul’s insistence was not Saul’s armor-bearer. When the armor-bearer refused to kill his master, Saul fell upon his sword rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines. His armor-bearer then followed suit and also died.
“The whole account which this young man gives is a fabrication: in many of the particulars it is grossly self-contradictory. There is no fact in the case but the bringing of the crown, or diadem, and bracelets of Saul; which, as he appears to have been a plunderer of the slain, he found on the field of battle; and he brought them to David, and told the lie of having despatched Saul, merely to ingratiate himself with David.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:308.)
That David understood the Amalekite’s motives is clear from 2 Samuel 4:10. David’s lamentation over the death of Saul was sincere and deep. Instead of being grateful for the death of his most violent enemy, he truly mourned for the tragedy that had befallen Israel.
After Saul died, the tribes of Israel did not immediately flock to David and accept him as king. Abner, the captain of Saul’s host (his commanding general), set up one of Saul’ sons as the new king (see vv. 8–9). The tribe of Judah accepted David as king, but for seven years there was no unity, and two opposing kings reigned (see v. 11). David may have refused to take action against Ishbosheth because he had covenanted with Jonathan not to retaliate against Saul’s family when he came to power (see 1 Samuel 20:14–16).
The contest between the men of Abner and the men of Joab at the pool of Gibeon was more than a simple grudge match. Abner was the leader of the forces of Ishbosheth, Saul’s son. Joab was David’s commander. Thus, in the clash between the two kingdoms, champions were chosen to determine the winner (see Reading 25-5). The challenge to let the young men “play before us” (v. 14) meant to let the twelve representatives battle for each side.
When the twelve from each side had killed each other, no clear winner was shown, so both sides erupted into a furious battle, which David’s men won. When Asahel, Joab’s brother, gave chase to Abner, Abner yelled back that Asahel should content himself by taking the armor of one of the younger men, but Asahel refused.
“It seems Asahel wished to get the armour of Abner as a trophy; this also was greatly coveted by ancient heroes. Abner wished to spare him, for fear of exciting Joab’s enmity; but as Asahel was obstinate in the pursuit, and was swifter of foot than Abner, the latter saw that he must either kill or be killed, and therefore he turned his spear and ran it through the body of Asahel. This turning about that he might pierce him is what we translate ‘the hinder end of his spear.’ This slaying of Asahel cost Abner his life.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:313.)
 |
| The pool of Gibeon |
The war between the two kingdoms grew more intense as David’s army slowly gained the upper hand (see v. 1). It was at that point that Ishbosheth accused Abner of having an affair with one of Saul’s wives (see v. 7). To approach the royal concubines was tantamount to claiming the throne. It is little wonder Ishbosheth was concerned. Abner’s question, “Am I a dog’s head of Judah,” meant, “Am I a traitor?” (v. 8). This he soon proved to be.
Enraged, Abner retaliated against Ishbosheth by turning the hearts of the rest of the people to King David (see vv. 17–19), and then he himself deserted to David’s camp (see v. 20). Joab used this opportunity to avenge the death of his brother (see v. 27).
David went to great lengths to demonstrate to the people that he had had nothing to do with Abner’s death (see vv. 28–38). This move was important politically, for those whom Abner had persuaded to change their loyalty to David could easily have gone back to Ishbosheth at the news of Abner’s death.
Again, David showed great wisdom and judgment by executing the two men who killed Ishbosheth. Although he was at war with Ishbosheth, David did not condone the treachery of the assassins and put them to death. His wisdom and goodness finally united the tribes into one kingdom loyal to David.
The origin of the city of Jerusalem is lost in antiquity. The first biblical reference to the city may be in Genesis, which states that “Melchizedek king of Salem” (Jerusalem) and “priest of the most high God” met Abraham returning from his battle with the kings and blessed him (Genesis 14:18). He was the one to whom Abraham paid a tithe of all he possessed. When Joshua crossed the Jordan the Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, possessed the city. This people held Jerusalem until David captured it about 1000 B.C., although Israel may have temporarily conquered the city soon after their invasion of the land of Canaan (see Joshua 10).
David wisely chose this city as his capital, for Jerusalem was a city between the northern and southern tribes of Israel but it belonged to neither of them because it was still held by the Canaanite Jebusites. The manner of conquering the city has been much discussed because of the problematical word rendered “gutter” (2 Samuel 5:8). The word most likely designates a channel or a shaft, as it is similarly used in Mishnaic Hebrew. The shaft running up perpendicularly from a water conduit cut into the rock fifty feet west from Gihon, discovered by Sir C. Warren in 1867, would have given people inside the city walls access to water in time of siege and would have made a possible avenue for invaders to enter and open the gates of the city from within. Joab is said to have accomplished that initial entry (see 1 Chronicles 11:6).
The sarcasm of the Jebusites’ saying David would have to overcome “the blind and the lame,” as if such would have been sufficient to defend the city, was returned to them by David, who thereafter scathingly referred to all the Jebusite defenders as “the blind and the lame” (vv. 6, 8).
About midway between present-day Beirut and Haifa in Israel was the port city of Tyre, one of the ancient and most important cities of the Phoenicians. The name Hiram appears to have been the family name for a king or series of kings of Tyre who were contemporaries of David and Solomon. Best known of these Hirams is he who sent masons, carpenters, and cedars from Lebanon to build David’s palace in Jerusalem (see 2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Chronicles 14:1). Later, Solomon was greatly assisted in the building of the temple in Jerusalem by this same Hiram, or another of the same name (see 1 Kings 9; 2 Chronicles 2).
If the war with the Philistines occurred prior to the capture of Jerusalem, the “hold” (v. 17) to which David went for safety was probably the cave of Adullam (see 1 Samuel 22:1–4). If, however, the war occurred after Jerusalem’s seizure, the hold may refer to Jerusalem itself (see 2 Samuel 5:7, 9). David did not count his men, meaning to rely on the size of his army, but rather he relied on the Lord.
The ark of the covenant was a sacred vessel that housed some of the holiest objects in Israel’s history. To touch the ark or its contents was strictly forbidden by the Lord. Only authorized Levites, and they only under certain specified conditions, could handle the sacred instruments (see Numbers 4:15). Uzzah may have exhibited some bold presumption when he sought to touch that which God had forbidden to be touched. Even if Uzzah’s intention was simply to keep the ark from falling, it should be remembered that God was fully capable of steadying His own ark had He wished to do so. While much of the story is not known, it is an excellent example that the commands of God are sacred and must be observed precisely as the Lord decreed. There are many modern-day implications (see Reading 26-23).
“When the ark came (i.e. was carried) into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and there she saw king David leaping and dancing before Jehovah, and despised him in her heart. . . . Michal is intentionally designated the daughter of Saul here, instead of the wife of David, because on this occasion she manifested her father’s disposition rather than her husband’s. In Saul’s time people did not trouble themselves about the ark of the covenant [1 Chronicles 13:3]; public worship was neglected, and the soul for vital religion had died out in the family of the king. Michal possessed teraphim, and in David she only loved the brave hero and exalted king: she therefore took offence at the humility with which the king, in his pious enthusiasm, placed himself on an equality with all the rest of the nation before the Lord. . . .
“. . . The proud daughter of Saul was offended at the fact, that the king had let himself down on this occasion to the level of the people. She availed herself of the shortness of the priests’ shoulder dress, to make a contemptuous remark concerning David’s dancing, as an impropriety that was unbecoming in a king. . . . With the words ‘who chose me before thy father and all his house,’ David humbles the pride of the king’s daughter. His playing and dancing referred to the Lord, who had chosen him, and had rejected Saul on account of his pride. He would therefore let himself be still further despised before the Lord, i.e. would bear still greater contempt from men than that which he had just received, and be humbled in his own eyes [see Psalm 131:1]: then would he also with the maidens attain to honour before the Lord. For whoso humbleth himself, him will God exalt [Matthew 23:12].” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:336–38.)
David’s motivation for wanting to build a permanent house for the Lord (the tabernacle built by Moses in the wilderness was then about three hundred years old) was proper and good, but the Lord, through Nathan, denied him permission to do so. No specific reason was given here, only a blessing on David’s house. In the account in Chronicles, however, David told Solomon that it was revealed to him that he had seen too much war and bloodshed to build the house of the Lord (see 1 Chronicles 22:8).
This verse is an example of a dualistic prophecy, that is, a prophecy with a double meaning (see Reading G-5). It promised that David’s lineage would continue on the throne, and unlike Saul’s lineage, would not be overthrown after his death. But it is clearly a Messianic prophecy as well. Jesus, the Messiah, was called David, He would hold the key of David, and He would sit upon the throne of David (see Reading 26-1). Clearly, only one person can sit upon the throne of David (that is, rule over the house of Israel) forever and ever, and that one is Christ. He came into mortality as a descendant of David and as an heir to his throne both physically and spiritually. Elder James E. Talmage explained the significance of the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke as establishing Jesus’ right to the throne.
“At the time of the Savior’s birth, Israel was ruled by alien monarchs. The rights of the royal Davidic family were unrecognized; and the ruler of the Jews was an appointee of Rome. Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 87.)