17<\/strong>. Samuel called the people together<\/em> ] He convoked the national assembly or “congregation of Israel,” which had made the request for a king through its representative elders (1Sa 8:4<\/span>). This body was composed of all Israelites of twenty years old and upwards (Num 1:3<\/span>) who had not forfeited their privileges, together with foreigners admitted upon certain conditions. Its political functions were necessarily limited by the nature of the theocracy, and consisted rather in accepting the declared will of Jehovah than in originating measures of its own. Thus:<\/p>\n (1) The Law was solemnly accepted by it (Exo 19:3-9<\/span>; Exo 24:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n (2) Leaders and kings chosen by divine command were presented to it for approval, as on the present occasion, and in the case of Joshua (Num 27:18-23<\/span>); David (2Sa 5:1<\/span>); Solomon (1Ch 29:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n (3) In later times some of the kings appear to have been actually elected by it: e.g. Jeroboam (1Ki 12:20<\/span>); Joash (2Ki 11:19<\/span>); Josiah (2Ki 21:24<\/span>); Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:30<\/span>).<\/p>\n (4) It possessed a national judicial authority (Jdg 20:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n (5) It claimed some voice in questions of alliance and peace and war (Jos 9:15<\/span>; Jos 9:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n unto the<\/em> Lord to Mizpeh<\/em> ] See note on 1Sa 10:3<\/em><\/span>; and for Mizpah see note on 1Sa 7:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 17 27. The Public election of Saul as King<\/p>\n The thread of the narrative in ch. 8, which has been temporarily dropped in order to give an account of the circumstances by which Samuel was privately made acquainted with the man whom Jehovah had chosen to rule his people, is now resumed, and Saul’s public election by lot to the regal office described. Since the revelation to Samuel and the choice by lot were equally declarations of Jehovah’s will, there could be no contradiction between them: the latter publicly confirmed the former for the satisfaction of the people.<\/p>\n 1Sa 10:17-25<\/span><\/p>\n And Samuel called the people together unto the Lord to Mizpeh.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The public recognition of incipient kingship<\/strong><\/p>\n Long enough had Saul been in the Divine studio, and fashioned by heavenly forces, his nature comes forth in power to enter upon lifes duty, and also to grapple with its difficulties. In this recognition of incipient kingship we have–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It was public. And Samuel called the people together unto the Lord to Mizpeh (1Sa 10:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This rejection was ungrateful. And ye have this day rejected your God, who Himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations (1Sa 10:19<\/span>). Like the planets nearest the sun, filled with light, and cheered with heat; so these Israelites had been fixed in the moral heavens near to the Infinite Being, who had thrown upon them the light of His finite mind, and given to them the sympathy of His loving heart; and thus blessed they now openly reject His future help! What ingratitude for a nation who had so frequently been delivered from imminent peril, from national ruin, and even from slavery, thus to deny Him who had been its refuge!<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>This rejection was wilful. And ye have this day rejected your God (1Sa 10:19<\/span>). It was not a mere frantic impulse that had taken possession of the national heart; nor had the petty orations of a renegade politician aroused the people to a temporary revolution. It was a matter of fixed purpose.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>This rejection was reprehensible. Ye have this day rejected your God.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>This rejection was tolerated. Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes, and by your thousands (1Sa 10:19<\/span>). The Divine Being frequently permits nations to have their own way, to pursue their own plans; and thus throwing themselves out of the chart of Providence, they are soon loosed on the wild ocean, until they are wrecked upon the predicted reefs.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The method according to which Saul was chosen. And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken (1Sa 10:20-21<\/span>).<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> The tribes were universally presented.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> The tribes were minutely inspected. Of course Samuel knew who was to be the future king, but yet he went through the ceremony of selecting him.<\/p>\n Why?<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> To show that the prior discipline of life is private in its nature. The discipline of every life is simply a matter between God and the soul immediately concerned; no other presence has a right to intrude upon its sanctity.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> To complete the satisfaction of the people. Had this method of choice not been adopted, and had Saul been made king merely upon the grounds of his previous calling, the people would have suspected favouritism, and have rebelled against the decision. But now they cannot all are placed on the same level, and therefore equally possess a like chance for the new office. Here we see,<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> That God does not despise the humbler circles of life. Saul was taken from the tribe of Benjamin. Many imagine that because they are poor they are despised by men, and also forgotten or neglected by God. But such is not the case.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Sauls modesty is worthy of observation. And the Lord answered, Behold, he hath hid himself among the stuff (1Sa 10:22<\/span>). This shows the effectiveness of the Divine discipline through which Saul had passed, and proves that he was the fit man for the office of kingship, Few men would run from kingship. Its pageantry would suit their pride too well; its sceptre would meet their ambition, and its flattery would feed their weakness. But Saul looked more at its responsibility than at its emolument. Some men, when called to posts of authority, exhibit a mock modesty, and hide themselves behind the stuff of life, but they take care to get where there are plenty of holes through which they may be seen, lest their compeers should stop in the search. Sauls was genuine modesty, and modesty never loses anything by being real, for it is in such request that men pray for its discovery (1Sa 10:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Sauls reception by the people.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> What recommended him to them?<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> It was enthusiastic. No doubt there were many disappointed hearts, but the general cry was, God save the king.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>The sacredness of national history (1Sa 10:25<\/span>).<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>The conduct of Samuel in this crisis.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Judicious.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Brave.<\/p>\n Lessons:–<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> That the Divine goodness is an argument for human obedience.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> That good men have frequently to do things contrary to their wishes.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> That occasionally good men must yield, in the Providence of God, to the desires of wicked people.<\/p>\n (4)<\/strong> That when good men yield to the requests of disobedient foes, they must proclaim the future consequences. (Joseph S. Exell, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Saul chosen king<\/strong><\/p>\n When first the desire to have a king came to a height with the people, they had the grace to go to Samuel, and endeavour to arrange the matter through him. But it was a good thing that they came to Samuel at all. They were not prepared to carry out their wishes by lawless violence; they were not desirous to make use of the usual Oriental methods of revolution–massacre and riot. Samuel convenes the heads of the various tribes to a meeting, which was not to be counted a rough political convention, but a solemn religious gathering in the very presence of the Lord. But before the lot was actually cast, Samuel addressed to the assembly one of those stern, terrible exposures of the spirit that had led to the transaction. How could the people, we may well ask, get over this? How could they prefer an earthly king to a heavenly?<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Perhaps we may wonder less at the behaviour of the Israelites on this occasion if we bear in mind how often the same offence is committed, and with how little thought and consideration, at the present day. To begin with, take the case–and it is a very common one–of those who have been dedicated to God in baptism, but who cast their baptismal covenant to the winds. The time comes when the provisional dedication to the Lord should be followed up by an actual and hearty consecration of themselves. Failing that, what can be said of them but that they reject God as their King? Then there are those who reject God in a more outrageous form. There are those who plunge boldly into the stream of sin, or into the stream of worldly enjoyment, determined to lead a life of pleasure, let the consequences be what they may. As to religion, it is nothing to them, except a subject of ridicule on the part of those who affect it. Morality–well, if it fall within the fashion of the world, it must be respected; otherwise let it go to the winds. God, heaven, hell–they are mere bugbears to frighten the timid and superstitious. Not only is God rejected, but He is defied. But there is still another class against whom the charge of rejecting God may be made. Not, indeed, in the same sense or to the same degree, but with one element of guilt which does not attach to the others, inasmuch as they have known what it is to have God for their King. I advert to certain Christian men and women who in their early days were marked by much earnestness of spirit, but having risen in the world, have fallen back from their first attainments, and have more or less accepted the worlds law. What glamour has passed over their souls to obliterate the surpassing glory of Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God? What evil spell has robbed the Cross of its holy influence, and made them so indifferent to the Son of God, who loved them and gave Himself for them?<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>But let us come back to the election. No doubt Saul had anticipated this consummation. He bad had too many supernatural evidences to the same effect to have any lingering doubt what would be the result of the lot. Gregory Nazianzen actually fled to the wilderness after his ordination, and Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, in the civil office which he held, tried to turn the people from their choice even by acts of cruelty and severity, after they had called on him to become their bishop. But, besides the natural shrinking of Saul from so responsible an office, we may believe that he was not unmoved by the solemn representation of Samuel that in their determination to have a human king the people had been guilty of rejecting God. This may have been the first time that that view of the matter seriously impressed itself on his mind. Even though his mind was not a spiritual mind, there was something frightful in the very idea of a man stepping, so to speak, into Gods place. No wonder, then, he hid himself!<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Three incidents are recorded towards the end of the chapter as throwing light on the great event of the day.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. This was another means taken by the faithful prophet to secure that this new step should if possible be for good, and not for evil. It was a new protest against assimilating the kingdom of Israel to the other kingdoms around. No! although Jehovah was no longer King in the sense in which He had been, His covenant and His law were still binding, and must be observed in Israel to their remotest generation.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> The next circumstance mentioned in the history is that when the people dispersed, and when Saul returned to his home at Gibeah, there went with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched. They were induced to form a bodyguard for the new king, and they did so under no physical constraint from him or anyone else, but because they were moved to do it from sympathy, from the desire to help him and be of service to him in the new position to which he had been raised. Here was a remarkable encouragement. A friend in need is a friend indeed. Could there have been any time when Saul was more in need of friends? Congregations ought to feel that it cannot be right to leave all the work to their minister. What kind of battle would it be if all the fighting were left to the officer in command? The glory of the primitive Church of Rome was that it abounded in men and women whose hearts God had touched, and who laboured much in the Lord.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> The last thing to be noticed is the difference of feeling toward Saul among the people. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Saul chosen, king<\/strong><\/p>\n The Jewish people lived under several different forms of government. At first they were under the primitive patriarchal form. After this came the theocratic government of the wilderness. This merged into the government by judges and became at times little better than anarchy. Then came the kingdom under Saul, David, and Solomon, followed by the divided monarchy under Rehoboam and Jeroboam and their successors. After this came the exile, and, after the restoration, a government with limited powers under control first of Persia, then of Greece, Egypt, and Syria, and finally, after a period of independence under the Maccabees, under the Roman government. Each of these forms of government gave some form or colour to the theology of the nation, but none so deeply and permanently affected it as the monarchy. Figures borrowed from it were prominent in the preaching of Christ and of the apostles; and the Christian Church looks and prays for the coming of the kingdom of which this was a type.<\/p>\n Saul chosen king<\/strong><\/p>\n The interest of the scene at Mizpeh concenters in the representative of the old regime and the new, the venerable judge and the young king. In the example of each we may find instruction.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>His humility.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>His self-control.<\/p>\n The young manhood of King Saul wins our hearts. But its brightness and beauty was of short duration. The sun arose in unveiled splendour, but long ere midday was lost in gathering, darkening clouds. (Monday Club Sermons.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Saul chosen king<\/strong><\/p>\n We shall best bring out the significance of this lesson, as part of the great revolution which established monarchy in Israel, by considering separately the respective parts in it of God, Samuel, and Saul.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>One great purpose shaping the details of the story is to make clear and emphatic that Saul was chosen by God. Now this fact that God chose Saul is full of instruction, when taken in conjunction with two things–Israels sin in desiring a king, and Sauls swift decadence and ultimate fall. But God permitted this sinful wish to have its way. Is that difficult to understand? Is it not in accord with His constant dealings? If we will not walk in His ways, He often leaves us to our own. He grants us the things that we whimper for, though our crying shows that we have shaken off His rule, and lets experience teach us the lessons of our folly. Wishes are often best cured by being fulfilled. Saul soon proved unworthy. The man chosen by God was a failure. Was, then, the choice a mistake? No. What he was chosen to do, he did. He saved Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. God chooses men for tasks, and is ready to fit them for their work, but He does not magically preserve them from the temptation of their positions, unless they keep themselves in touch with Him; and if they reject His help, and are made worse by their exaltation, it is not God who has erred in His choice, but men who have fallen beneath their vocation by their own sin.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Samuels part in the transaction is clearly marked. Only a man of ripened wisdom, and, still more necessary, of manifest disinterestedness, could have presided over so far-reaching a change. But a heart that keeps near to God is fitted for delicate duties, and a leader who evidently has no personal ends can sway men almost as he will. Well is it for nations and churches when the representatives of the old order are willing to pour the anointing oil on the young head of the embodiment of the new, and to give the stalwart warrior the benediction of a kiss from aged lips.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Sauls part in this incident brings into view chiefly two points, both of them excellences. The lesson for all, especially for the young, is, do the small duties of today, and be sure that doing them is the best preparation for wider spheres, and that when you are ready for these, they will be accessible to you. The reward of work is more work. Little tasks may be great if done from great motives; and, if we fill the corner where we are with light, we shall sooner or later be set on a candlestick high enough for the light that is in us. Simplicity and modesty marked the young Saul. He feels himself unworthy of the great destiny dimly marked out for him (1Sa 10:21<\/span>). Such a temper becomes untried youth, though its opposite is often a characteristic of early life. It usually takes a good many hard knocks to beat youthful self-conceit out of a man. It is time enough to boast when we are putting off the armour, and law of us have much inclination to do so then. But when we are putting it on, and have made no proof of our prowess, the less we brag or think of ourselves the better. It will do us no harm to remember the wise saying of a Cambridge don, Gentlemen, none of us, not even the youngest, is infallible. (A. Maclaren, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Unto the Lord; <\/B>to appear before the Lord. So he speaks, either, <\/P> 1. Because the ark was carried thither upon this occasion. Or, <\/P> 2. Because God is present in all the assemblies of his people, whereof this was an eminent one: see 2Ch 19:6<\/span>; Psa 82:1<\/span>. Or, <\/P> 3. Because they did in a manner erect a tribunal for God; and entreated, and consequently obtained, his presence there to supervise and direct the whole business by his sentence, which also he did, 1Sa 10:19<\/span>, &c. See of this phrase Jdg 11:11<\/span>; 20:1<\/span>. <\/P> To Mizpeh; <\/B>a city of Benjamin, Jos 13:26<\/span>, where all Israel had met before upon a public and solemn occasion, 1Sa 7:5<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 17-25. Samuel called the peopletogether . . . at Mizpeh<\/B>a shaft-like hill near Hebron, fivehundred feet in height. The national assemblies of the Israeliteswere held there. A day having been appointed for the election of aking, Samuel, after having charged the people with a rejection ofGod’s institution and a superseding of it by one of their own,proceeded to the nomination of the new monarch. As it was of theutmost importance that the appointment should be under the divinedirection and control, the determination was made by the miraculouslot, tribes, families, and individuals being successively passeduntil Saul was found. His concealment of himself must have been theresult either of innate modesty, or a sudden nervous excitement underthe circumstances. When dragged into view, he was seen to possess allthose corporeal advantages which a rude people desiderate in theirsovereigns; and the exhibition of which gained for the prince thefavorable opinion of Samuel also. In the midst of the nationalenthusiasm, however, the prophet’s deep piety and genuine patriotismtook care to explain “the manner of the kingdom,” that is,the royal rights and privileges, together with the limitations towhich they were to be subjected; and in order that the constitutionmight be ratified with all due solemnity, the charter of thisconstitutional monarchy was recorded and laid up “before theLord,” that is, deposited in the custody of the priests, alongwith the most sacred archives of the nation.<\/P><\/p>\n And Samuel called the people together unto the Lord at Mizpeh.<\/strong> Not that in Gilead, but in the tribe of Benjamin, where the people had been before convened on a certain occasion, 1Sa 7:5<\/span> and the people called together could not be every individual of the nation, but the heads and elders of the people, their representatives, and who were summoned by the orders of Samuel; perhaps by an herald making proclamation and cry of the same, as the word signifies; and these were gathered together to the Lord, to have the following affair transacted before him, and under his guidance and direction; the priest perhaps being here with the Urim and Thummim, as Kimchi thinks, and who also conjectures that the ark might be brought hither at this time, the symbol of the divine Presence; though wherever the church and people of God were gathered together in his name, in a solemn manner, there the Lord was.<\/p>\n Saul’s Election by Lot. – After Samuel had secretly anointed Saul king by the command of God, it was his duty to make provision for a recognition of the man whom God had chosen on the part of the people also. To this end he summoned the people to Mizpeh, and there instructed the tribes to choose a king by lot. As the result of the lot was regarded as a divine decision, not only was Saul to be accredited by this act in the sight of the whole nation as the king appointed by the Lord, but he himself was also to be more fully assured of the certainty of his own election on the part of God. – <\/p>\n (Note: Thenius follows De Wette, and adduces the incompatibility of 1 Samuel 8 and 1Sa 10:17-27<\/span> with 1Sa 9:1-10<\/span>, 1Sa 9:16<\/span>, as a proof that in 1Sa 10:17-27<\/span> we have a different account of the manner in which Saul became king from that given in 1Sa 9:1-10<\/span>, 1Sa 9:16<\/span>, and one which continues the account in 1Sa 8:22<\/span>. “It is thoroughly inconceivable,” he says, “that Samuel should have first of all anointed Saul king by the instigation of God, and then have caused the lot to be cast, as it were, for the sake of further confirmation; for in that case either the prophet would have tempted God, or he would have made Him chargeable before the nation with an unworthy act of jugglery.” Such an argument as this could only be used by critics who deny not only the inspiration of the prophets, but all influence on the part of the living God upon the free action of men, and cannot therefore render the truth of the biblical history at all doubtful. Even Ewald<\/em> sees no discrepancy here, and observes in his history ( Gesch. <\/em> iii. p. 32): “If we bear in mind the ordinary use made of the sacred lot at that time, we shall find that there is nothing but the simple truth in the whole course of the narrative. The secret meeting of the seer with Saul was not sufficient to secure a complete and satisfactory recognition of him as king; it was also necessary that the Spirit of Jehovah should single him out publicly in a solemn assembly of the nation, and point him out as the man of Jehovah.”) <\/p>\n 1Sa 10:17<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> is the nation in its heads and representatives. Samuel<\/em> selected Mizpeh<\/em> for this purpose, because it was there that he had once before obtained for the people, by prayer, a great victory over the Philistines (1Sa 7:5<\/span>.).<\/p>\n 1Sa 10:18-19<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> “But before proceeding to the election itself, Samuel once more charged the people with their sin in rejecting God, who had brought them out of Egypt, and delivered them out of the hand of all their oppressors, by their demand for a king, that he might show them how dangerous was the way which they were taking now, and how bitterly they would perhaps repent of what they had now desired” ( O. v. Gerlach<\/em>; see the commentary on 1 Samuel 8). The masculine is construed ad sensum <\/em> with . In the early translators have taken for , which is the actual reading in some of the Codices. But although this reading is decidedly favoured by the parallel passages, 1Sa 8:19<\/span>; 1Sa 12:12<\/span>, it is not necessary; since is used to introduce a direct statement, even in a declaration of the opposite, in the sense of our “ no but<\/em> ” (e.g., in Rth 1:10<\/span>, where precedes). There is, therefore, no reason for exchanging for .<\/p>\n 1Sa 10:20-21<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> After this warning, Samuel directed the assembled Israelites to come before Jehovah (i.e., before the altar of Jehovah which stood at Mizpeh, according to 1Sa 7:9<\/span>) according to their tribes and families ( alaphim <\/em>: see at Num 1:16<\/span>); “ and there was taken<\/em> (by lot) the tribe of Benjamin<\/em>.” , lit<\/em>. to be snatched out by Jehovah, namely, through the lot (see Jos 7:14<\/span>, Jos 7:16<\/span>). He then directed the tribe of Benjamin to draw near according to its families, i.e., he directed the heads of the families of this tribe to come before the altar of the Lord and draw lots; and the family of Matri was taken<\/em>. Lastly, when the heads of the households in this family came, and after that the different individuals in the household which had been taken, the lot fell upon Saul the son of Kish<\/em>. In the words, “ Saul the son of Kish was taken<\/em>,” the historian proceeds at once to the final result of the casting of the lots, without describing the intermediate steps any further.<\/p>\n (Note: It is true the Septuagint introduces the words before , and this clause is also found in a very recent Hebrew MS (viz., 451 in Kennicott’s dissert<\/em>. gener<\/em>. p. 491). But it is very evident that these words did not form an integral part of the original text, as Thenius supposes, but were nothing more than an interpolation of the Sept.<\/em> translators, from the simple fact that they do not fill up the supposed gap at all completely, but only in a very partial and in fact a very mistaken manner; for the family of Matri<\/em> could not come to the lot (man by man), but only (by households: Jos 7:14<\/span>). Before the household ( beth <\/em> – aboth <\/em>, father’s house) of Saul could be taken, it was necessary that the ( ), i.e., the different heads of households, should be brought; and it was not till then that Kish, or his son Saul, could be singled out as the appointed of the Lord. Neither the author of the gloss in the lxx, nor the modern defender of the gloss, has thought of this.)<\/p>\n When the lot fell upon Saul, they sought him, and he could not be found.<\/p>\n 1Sa 10:22<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Then they inquired of Jehovah, “ Is any one else come hither?<\/em> ” and Jehovah replied, “ Behold, he<\/em> (whom ye are seeking) is hidden among the things<\/em>.” The inquiry was made through the high priest, by means of the Urim and Thummim, for which was the technical expression, according to Num 27:21<\/span> (see Jdg 20:27-28<\/span>; Jdg 1:1<\/span>, etc.). There can be no doubt, that in a gathering of the people for so important a purpose as the election of a king, the high priest would also be present, even though this is not expressly stated. Samuel presided over the meeting as the prophet of the Lord. The answer given by God, “ Behold, he is hidden<\/em>,” etc., appears to have no relation to the question, “ Is any one else come?<\/em> ” The Sept.<\/em> and Vulg.<\/em> have therefore altered the question into , utrumnam venturus esset ;<\/em> and Thenius would adopt this as an emendation. But he is wrong in doing so; for there was no necessity to ask whether Saul would still come: they might at once have sent to fetch him. What they asked was rather, whether any one else had come besides those who were present, as Saul was not to be found among them, that they might know where they were to look for Saul, whether at home or anywhere else. And to this question God gave the answer, “He is present, only hidden among the things.” By (the things<\/em> or vessels<\/em>, Eng. ver. the stuff) we are to understand the travelling baggage<\/em> of the people who had assembled at Mizpeh. Saul could neither have wished to avoid accepting the monarchy, nor have imagined that the lot would not fall upon him if he hid himself. For he knew that God had chosen him; and Samuel had anointed him already. He did it therefore simply from humility and modesty. “In order that he might not appear to have either the hope or desire for anything of the kind, he preferred to be absent when the lots were cast” (Seb. Schmidt).<\/p>\n 1Sa 10:23-25<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> He was speedily fetched, and brought into the midst of the (assembled) people; and when he came, he was a head taller than all the people (see 1Sa 9:2<\/span>). And Samuel said to all the people, “ Behold ye whom the Lord hath chosen! for there is none like him in all the nation<\/em>.” Then all the people shouted aloud, and cried, “ Let the king live!<\/em> ” Saul’s bodily stature won the favour of the people (see the remarks on 1Sa 9:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n Samuel then communicated to the people the right of the monarchy, and laid it down before Jehovah. “ The right of the monarchy<\/em> ” ( meluchah <\/em>) is not to be identified with the right of the king ( melech <\/em>), which is described in 1Sa 8:11<\/span> and sets forth the right or prerogative which a despotic king would assume over the people; but it is the right which regulated the attitude of the earthly monarchy in the theocracy, and determined the duties and rights of the human king in relation to Jehovah the divine King on the one hand, and to the nation on the other. This right could only be laid down by a prophet like Samuel, to raise a wholesome barrier at the very outset against all excesses on the part of the king. Samuel therefore wrote it in a document which was laid down before Jehovah, i.e., in the sanctuary of Jehovah; though certainly not in the sanctuary at Bamah in Gibeah, as Thenius supposes, for nothing is known respecting any such sanctuary. It was no doubt placed in the tabernacle, where the law of Moses was also deposited, by the side of the fundamental law of the divine state in Israel. When the business was all completed, Samuel sent the people away to their own home.<\/p>\n 1Sa 10:26<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Saul also returned to his house at Gibeah, and there went with him the crowd of the men whose hearts God had touched, sc., to give him a royal escort, and show their readiness to serve him. is not to be altered into , according to the free rendering of the lxx, but is used as in Exo 14:28<\/span>; with this difference, however, that here it does not signify a large military force, but a crowd of brave men, who formed Saul’s escort of honour.<\/p>\n 1Sa 10:27<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> But as it generally happens that, where a person is suddenly lifted up to exalted honours or office, there are sure to be envious people found, so was it here: there were , worthless people<\/em>, even among the assembled Israelites, who spoke disparagingly of Saul, saying, “ How will this man help us?<\/em> ” and who brought him no present. Minchah <\/em>: the present which from time immemorial every one has been expected to bring when entering the presence of the king; so that the refusal to bring a present was almost equivalent to rebellion. But Saul was “ as being deaf<\/em>,” i.e., he acted as if he had not heard. The objection which Thenius brings against this view, viz., that in that case it would read , exhibits a want of acquaintance with the Hebrew construction of a sentence. There is no more reason for touching than in 1Sa 10:26<\/span>. In both cases the apodosis is attached to the protasis, which precedes it in the form of a circumstantial clause, by the imperfect<\/em>, with Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>A rejection of the Divine. The last embers of the old Jewish Theocracy are smouldering into extinction. The rejection of the Divine King:–<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>A coronation of the human.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>We are interested in noticing the proposed kingdom as it affected Samuel. The step was a great disappointment to him and also a personal insult. Much of his life work seemed to him wasted unless the form of government under which he had brought the land to prosperity continued. Many a faithful minister well past the dead line of fifty, but with heart full of the Spirit of Christ, has the same mingling of righteous and personal sorrow when the congregation, to please the young people, begin suggesting that a younger man could do better the work of the church. There was another personal sorrow to Samuel in the choice. The people in their demand for a king had told him in the bluntest possible manner of the unfitness of his own sons to be their leaders, and he was forced to acknowledge publicly the sad truth which his aching heart was reluctant to admit even to himself (1Sa 8:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>We are much instructed by the fact that God did not immediately desert the people after their wrong choice. Good men sometimes feel constrained thus to act; but if God had withheld help from all religious and political enterprises which fell below absolute righteousness, the world would have been in perdition long ago. A Christian is sometimes at a loss to know how far his cooperation with what seems to him the best policy possible to succeed, but which still falls below his ideal, makes him responsible for the defects of the policy or system. There are many excellent people who fail to cooperate with others for the reason that their plans seem in part a concession to evil that for the present cannot be cured. The question whether a Christian may hold stock in a railroad, on the whole righteously managed but with some wrong features of administration; the question whether a Christian may visit the Worlds Fair if it open on Sunday; the question whether a Christian may patronise a hotel having a bar–these and many others sometimes puzzle good people. Paul was able to discriminate carefully and to determine whether eating meats offered to idols would involve a seeming endorsement of idolatry. In like manner must we discriminate between systems fundamentally evil and systems in which, though having features that are wrong, the evil is incidental. Perhaps there is not in the Old Testament an incident more clearly illustrative of Gods attitude towards such systems than is afforded by this lesson.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>We are interested in the light which this lesson throws upon the better nature of Saul. Well may the words of Samuel have made the young leader tremble for his own future in the position which he must occupy. In this day young men are called out as never before into responsible positions. Because of this fact they are coming to expect it and perhaps to seek it. This is natural, but usually not necessary. The right man is not likely to be so hidden in the stuff but that he can be found for the place which God has anointed him to fill. The man with his back to the sunrise, when the king was to be chosen, first saw it as it lit up the western hill tops. The best way for the young man who feels himself fitted for a higher place than he now occupies is to make himself so conspicuously useful where he is that when the people begin searching among the stuff they will find him head and shoulders above his companions. The hiding of good men grows increasingly difficult. The member of the House of Commons who sneered at an opponent, You blacked my fathers boots! received an answer that well may have been given with honest pride: Yes, and did it well. Far from disqualifying him, the humble work may have added important qualifications for the higher service. Now, Saul is warmhearted and dignified and sincere. No wonder the people admire him, for the words of Samuel are true and there is none like him whom the Lord hath chosen among all the people.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>It is interesting to notice in the closing verses an illustration of the familiar truth that a good thing wrongly obtained does not satisfy. The people have had their own way, and God has helped them to secure just what they had been demanding. When they saw him, they shouted their approval of his selection. But the children of Belial, or the worthless ones who undoubtedly had been foremost in demanding a king, despised him. It is ever so. No man more heartily condemns sin than the sinner who commits it. At the last all sin bites like a serpent. But before this the stolen fruit is found less sweet than the sinner anticipated, and the self-loathing because of it makes it bitter to our taste. The lesson that most forcibly recurs to us is that which appears again and again in our study of the history of the Jewish people–Gods faithfulness even to the unfaithful, His changelessness even to those who were constantly changing and so often for the worse, His goodness even to the undeserving. He is kind to the unthankful. (William E. Barton.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The conduct of Samuel at Mizpeh sets before us the wisdom of timely concession. The change was inevitable. No personal influence could prevent or long hinder it. The wisdom of Samuel in his mediation between the old system and the new is now apparent. Of such men as Samuel, Dean Stanley has said, they are the silent healers who bind up the wounds of their age in spite of itself; they are the good physicians who knit together the dislocated bones of a disjointed time; they are the reconcilers who turn the hearts of the children to the fathers, or of the fathers to the children.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The example of Samuel further illustrates the nobility of self-renunciation. He was called to depose himself and to invest another with his authority. How the story of his own life came up before him as he pondered the change! Yet above all these natural feelings Samuel rose victorious. Chagrin, if he felt it, was quickly overcome. Personal humiliation was lost in the desire to save Israel from the full consequences of her sin. A noble freedom from jealousy, like that of John the Baptist when he looked upon his successor, and like that of Paul in view of his rivals at Philippi, but the like of which the world has not often see, now marked his course. Hitherto he had been a wise ruler, a sagacious and righteous judge, but not more famous than other judges. By self-renunciation he now became great.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The career of Samuel suggests to us the strength which comes from conscious obedience to the will of God. It was known to him that, in yielding to the people and anointing a king, he was doing Gods will. His obedient spirit led him to look upon the change in its relation to Gods purposes, and not as affecting his own interests. The cause which had failed was Gods cause. In taking sides with God in this matter, he was assured that he was not suffering final defeat. To find ones self wholly opposed to prevailing currents of thought and feeling is to become helpless and despondent, except as the soul rests upon the clear revelation of the will of God. Such a revelation had come to Samuel. Obedience is a lofty virtue. The best fruit to be gathered from the study of the life of Samuel is this: that constant and consistent obedience to the will of God is an unfailing source of strength and stability. Laying aside all thought of the long darkening tragedy of Sauls later life, we may study the scene at Mizpeh as it presents him to us. We note:<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n