C. The Rise and Sudden Fall of Saul (chs. 8-15)

Samuel’s success was short-lived since he, like Eli (2:22-25), had to be told that Joel and Abijah, his sons whom he had appointed judges, were corrupt. As the Eli episode led to a new era of prophetic leadership in Israel, so this episode led to a new period of royal leadership. Samuel’s age and his sons' failures compelled the people to ask for a king to judge them (8:1-5).

In the larger canonical context, in addition to Hannah’s reference to a king (2:10), Moses had put forth conditions should Israel ever opt for a monarch (Dt 17:14-20). Gideon rejected a request that he and his sons rule, since that was Yahweh’s role (Jdg 8:22-23). Gideon’s wisdom was confirmed by the disastrous kingship of his son Abimelech (Jdg 9). Also, as noted, though Jdg 17-21 indicated the need for a king, 1Sa 1-7 emphasized that the prophet Samuel was providing adequate leadership. Thus, up to this point the canon (1) qualifies kingship (Dt 17:14-20); (2) condemns it (Jdg 8:22-23; 9); (3) anticipates (Jdg 17-21) and predicts it (1Sa 2:10); but delivers a prophet (1Sa 1-7). Kingship in Israel was a complicated proposition.

Though the people obviously acknowledged Samuel’s authority in their request, he was displeased. So was the Lord, who construed the request as a rejection of divine kingship (8:6-8). Nevertheless, God told Samuel to accede, but also to inform the people that one day they would cry out because of their king (z'q; cf. Jdg 3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:6-7; 10:10-14; 1Sa 7:8), but God would not respond (vv.9-18). Undaunted, Israel insisted on a king, and Yahweh told Samuel to relent (vv.19-21).

1Sa 9:1 appears to launch a new story (cf. 1:1). Indeed, it takes a while (9:15-17) to realize that the newly introduced protagonist Saul was slated to be the new king. First, one learns only that he was Kish’s son, tall and good looking, and dutifully searching for his father’s runaway livestock (vv.1-5). The encounter with Samuel seemed accidental and completely related to the lost animals (vv.6-14).

Yahweh (and Samuel) simultaneously established and attempted to control the kingship. Yahweh told Samuel to appoint a “leader” (ngd not mlk [=“king”]) because Israel’s cry under Philistine oppression had been heard (9:15-16). But Yahweh had already saved Israel from Philistia (7:8). God acted at this point as though the kingship were not due to the people’s rejection of divine rule. At the same time, the Lord said that this “leader” would “govern” ('ṣr; lit. “restrain” [an ironic pun?]) rather than “judge” (8:5). Was Yahweh refusing to grant the people exactly what they requested? Regardless, there are two counter impulses present: (1) the kingship was based on sinful demands and therefore was problematic, and (2) Yahweh elected an obedient son to be the new leader.

When Samuel anointed Saul (10:1; cf. 2:10; 9:16), he told him that he would find the asses, receive bread from three men bearing uneven burdens, and prophesy with other prophets while being changed into a different person (vv.2-6; cf. 9:3, 7). Such signs confirmed Saul’s appointment. Then Samuel issued two orders, one openended (v.7) and one specific (v.8). How was Saul to know which was operative, or was the first merely a statement that the king was empowered to act (Eslinger, 323)? However this question is answered, Saul began on a positive note. At the same time, Samuel’s ability to predict the signs reminds one of his prediction that the kingship would fail (8:10-18).

God changed Saul’s heart before the signs were fulfilled (10:9), perhaps to hasten the course of action (Eslinger, 326). Or it may be that the statement is a presummary. Curiously, only the third sign is elaborated on. Is this to emphasize the reaction of the people (vv.10-12)? And do the people simply ask a rhetorical question, or do they in fact connect the prophetic movement and Saul (Eslinger, 331)?

The text invites other questions. Did Saul keep the matter of the kingship secret (10:14-16) because he thought his uncle would not believe him, or because he was himself incredulous or thought himself unfit (cf. 9:21; 10:20-24)? Did Samuel’s negative word (10:17-19) counter God’s positive one (9:15-16)? Since Saul was already chosen, did God and Samuel manipulate the lots (10:20-21)?

Samuel exercised control by informing the people of divinely sanctioned regulations governing the kingship (10:25). But the people still got most of what they wanted and were pleased (vv.24, 26; cf. v.27). It remained an open question whether Saul, who had done everything asked of him, could survive the countervailing forces at work.

His first test came when Nahash the Ammonite threatened the Jabeshites with humiliation and enslavement (11:1-2). But Nahash was as stupid or arrogant as he was diabolical, for he gave the elders time to find a deliverer (v.3). When Saul was informed, God’s Spirit spurred him into action (vv.4-7; cf. Jdg 14:6, 19; 15:14). The king issued a call to arms by invoking Samuel’s name along with his own; the summons was sanctioned by Yahweh (vv.7-8). Then, after making the Ammonites believe that Jabesh would surrender, Saul attacked and defeated the enemy (vv.9-11).

Saul succeeded by being under God’s Spirit, demonstrating military acumen (11:11) and mustering ten times more troops from his own territory as from elsewhere (v.8). He also credited God and refused to punish detractors (vv.12-13). Samuel affirmed Saul by reconfirming the kingship and leading worship. Still the question remains: Was the kingship affirmed because it had operated on the “judges” model rather than a “nations” model (cf. 8:5: “a king . . . such as all the other nations have”)?

Samuel’s speech suggests an affirmative answer. When the people agreed that he was above reproach (12:1-5) and that the former way of dealing with difficulties worked well (vv.6-11), they had to admit that there was no legitimate rationale for demanding a king. The victory against Philistia (7:2-17) and Ammon (11:1-15) proved that the “judges” model worked (cf. 12:11).

At the same time, Samuel glossed over his sons' corruption (v.2), which the people and the narrator said was the reason for requesting a king (8:1-5). Samuel made it sound as though the people first demanded a king in response to Nahash’s threat (12:12). In spite of the way he played down his sons' role, by emphasizing the kingship’s conditional character he ensured its subordination to other values (vv.13-15). Yahweh confirmed Samuel’s argument with a miracle (vv.16-18). The prophet’s last words about the kingship reflected his earlier point of view, and in addition provided a hermeneutical key for interpreting the subsequent history of the monarchy (vv.20-25; Eslinger, 408-10).

Samuel’s notion of a kingship informed by a “judges” model was immediately compromised. The formula in 13:1 is the same as that used for succeeding Israelite kings, indicating that a new era had been inaugurated (cf. 2Sa 5:4; 1Ki 14:21; 15:1, 9-10, 25, 33, etc.; Childs, Introduction, 271). Now, instead of acting under the impetus of God’s Spirit (cf. 11:6-7), Saul conscripted troops ahead of time (13:2). But he was still unprepared, for when Jonathan provoked the Philistines, he had to draft more troops (note how Saul took credit for his son’s attack; vv.3-4). This worsened the odds. Why had Saul allowed troops to return home (v.2)? Was it because of inexperience or incompetence? Things were made worse when some soldiers hid while others deserted (vv.5-7).

Samuel had promised to come to Gilgal (10:8), the battle site (13:4, 7) where Saul was dutifully waiting. But when Samuel inexplicably did not show, the king offered sacrifices (vv.8-9). Samuel then appeared; demanded an explanation; and, brushing aside Saul’s excuse, announced that his dynasty would not endure. Worse, God had already selected a replacement “after his own heart” (vv.10-14).

Had Saul usurped a priestly or prophetic prerogative? That is a typical interpretation, but others made similar offerings without censure (cf. 1Sa 14:33-35; 2Sa 6:12-14, 17-18). Besides, was not Samuel partially to blame for being late? If Saul violated an official regulation (10:25), we are not told what it was. Was Saul set up by vague or contradictory instructions (10:7-8; Gunn, 40-56)? Had Samuel fulfilled his own prophecy (8:10-18)? Or had Saul departed from the old ways (e.g., the Spirit of the Lord had not fallen) so that the sacrifice indicated a lack of faith rather than a liturgical violation? The narrator has temporarily withheld the answer to such questions.

In any case, Samuel withdrew, leaving Saul and Jonathan to face the Philistines alone with only six hundred troops. Worse, the Philistine monopoly on iron technology left Saul’s army with only two swords (13:19-22)!

This discouraging situation affords an insight into Saul’s behavior. Whereas Saul felt compelled to seek the Lord’s favor in Samuel’s absence (13:12), Jonathan was unfazed by Philistine superiority and was blithely dependent on God. Ignoring standard military procedure, Jonathan and his armor-bearer (with only one sword!) crept to a Philistine outpost without telling anyone (14:1). Such daring if not brash initiative underscores the timidity of Saul and his forces. Also, perhaps it should not go unnoticed that Saul had in his company Ahijah, a priest who belonged to Eli’s deposed line (vv.2-3).

Jonathan believed that odds meant nothing to Yahweh (v.6), so he devised a test whereby enemy reaction would signal attack or retreat. Receiving a positive sign, he attacked and inflicted minimal damage, whereupon a divinely induced panic beset the whole Philistine army (14:8-15).

When the Israelite army noticed the tumult, they checked and discovered that Jonathan was missing. Saul reacted by calling for the ark and presiding priest (14:19), which was reminiscent of Israel’s prior futile actions (ch. 4). Jonathan’s actions in contrast motivated defectors to return (v.21). While Jonathan’s initiative enabled Saul to exploit the confusion, the victory was clearly God’s (vv.20-23; cf. vv.6, 10, 12, 15, 23).

Whereas Jonathan prompted a divinely inspired victory, Saul underachieved and fostered sin. The king’s rash order that forbade eating till evening endangered Jonathan and drove the troops to cultic violations (14:24-33). Saul corrected the desecration (vv.33-35), but he and his priests received no revelatory word about the next course of action (vv.36-37). Ironically, though the priests failed, Saul prayed directly to God and learned that Jonathan had violated his oath. However, as though God had provided the information to embarrass Saul, the troops protected Jonathan because of the way God had used him (vv.38-45).

Saul’s ineptitude and ill-conceived oath prevented a decisive victory and forced him to face the Philistines again. To be sure, he tallied a few victories and his family grew, but unquestionably his record was undistinguished (14:46-52).

After this, Samuel mysteriously reappeared (cf. 13:15) and commanded Saul as though nothing untoward had happened. Noting that Yahweh had sent him to anoint Saul over God’s (not Saul’s!) people, Samuel ordered the king to destroy the Amalekites (15:1-3; cf. Jos 2:10; 6:18, 21, 26; 10:1, 28, 35, 37, 39, 40; 11:11, 12, 20, 21).

Saul obeyed unhesitatingly and even demonstrated initiative by warning the Kenites in advance (cf. Jdg 4:11, 17-22). But the king’s obedience was at best partial, for he spared Agag the Amalekite king and did not destroy the best part of the booty (15:4-9). So the Lord condemned Saul’s action, prompting Samuel to cry out (z'q; vv.10-11; cf. 13:11-14).

Instead of being poised for rebuke, Saul was so obtuse that he was off erecting a monument to himself (15:12). When Samuel confronted him, he protested his innocence and then blamed the soldiers, saying that their actions were motivated by cultic concerns (vv.13-21; Sternberg, 482-515). Saul at last confessed when Samuel said that God demanded unqualified obedience rather than compliance with perceived cultic regulations. But by then it was too late: Samuel rejected the confession! When Saul tore Samuel’s robe, it symbolized that his kingship had been torn from him (15:24-28).

Saul’s blaming the soldiers/people ('m; 15:15, 21, 24) was somewhat ironic in that it was their demands that had led to a king (8:7-10, 19, 21). It is also ironic that the Lord was grieved (nḥm; cf. RSV: “repented”; 15:11, 35) over having made Saul king but would not change his mind (=“repent”/nḥm; 15:29) regarding the judgment. And it is curious that God is referred to here as the Glory of Israel, the very epithet (kbd) used when Israel thought that God had disappeared with the ark (cf. 4:21).

Samuel finally allowed Saul to worship, but it was the last time the two men would be together. Having slain Agag as Saul was to have done, Samuel left the king alone (15:30-35).