16<\/strong>. in Gibeah of Benjamin<\/em> ] Heb. in Geba of Benjamin.<\/strong> The positions of 1Sa 13:2-3<\/em><\/span> are now reversed, the Philistines occupying Michmash on the northern side of the valley, Saul and Jonathan holding Geba on the southern side.<\/p>\n And Saul, and Jonathan his son<\/strong>,…. Who were now joined to their men, on Saul’s coming to Gibeah:<\/p>\n and the people that were present with them<\/strong>; the six hundred men before numbered: abode in Gibeah of Benjamin; being perhaps a strong fortified place, not choosing to go forth to meet the army of the Philistines, so vastly superior to them:<\/p>\n but the Philistines encamped at Michmash<\/strong>; the old quarters of Saul before he went to Gilgal, 1Sa 13:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n Disarming of Israel by the Philistines<\/em>. – The following account is no doubt connected with the foregoing, so far as the facts are concerned, inasmuch as Jonathan’s brave heroic deed, which brought the Israelites a splendid victory over the Philistines, terminated the war for which Saul had entreated the help of God by his sacrifice at Gilgal; but it is not formally connected with it, so as to form a compact and complete account of the successive stages of the war. On the contrary, the 16th verse, where we have an account of the Israelitish warriors and their enemies, commences a new section of the history, in which the devastating march of the Philistines through the land, and the disarming of the Israelites by these their enemies, are first of all depicted (1Sa 13:17-23<\/span>); and then the victory of the Israelites through Jonathan’s daring and heroic courage, notwithstanding their utter prostration, is recorded (1 Samuel 14:1-46), for the purpose of showing how the Lord had miraculously helped His people.<\/p>\n (Note: From this arrangement of the history, according to which the only two points that are minutely described in connection with the war with the Philistines are those which bring out the attitude of the king, whom the nation had desired to deliver it from its foes, towards Jehovah, and the way in which Jehovah acted towards His people, whilst all the rest is passed over, we may explain the absence of any closer connection between 1Sa 13:15<\/span> and 1Sa 13:16<\/span>, and not from a gap in the text. The lxx, however, adopted the latter supposition, and according to the usual fashion filled up the gap by expanding 1Sa 13:15<\/span> in the following thoughtless manner: , … For there is no sense in , and the whole thought, that the people who were left went up after Saul to meet the people of war, is unintelligible, since it is not stated whence the people of war had come, who are said to have met with those who had remained behind with Saul, and to have gone up with him from Gilgal to Gibeah. If, however, we overlook this, and assume that when Saul returned from Gilgal to Gibeah a further number of fighting men came to him from different parts of the land, how does this assumption agree with the account which follows, viz., that when Saul mustered the people he found only six hundred men, – a statement which is repeated again in 1Sa 14:2<\/span>? The discrepancy remains even if we adopt Ewald<\/em> ‘s conjecture ( Gesch. <\/em> iii. 43), that is a false rendering of , “to the conflict.” Moreover, even with the Alexandrian filling up, no natural connection is secured between 1Sa 13:15<\/span> and 1Sa 13:16<\/span>, unless we identify Geba<\/em> of Benjamin with Gibeah<\/em>, as the Septuagint and its latest defenders have done, and not only change the participle (1Sa 13:16<\/span>) into the aorist , but interpolate after “ at Geba <\/em> of Benjamin;” whereas the statement of the text “at Geba<\/em> in Benjamin” is proved to be correct by the simple fact that Jonathan could only attempt or carry out the heroic deed recorded in 1 Samuel 14 from Geba<\/em> and not from Gibeah<\/em>; and the alteration of the participle into the aorist is just as arbitrary as the interpolation of . From all this it follows that the Septuagint version has not preserved the original reading, as Ewald<\/em> and Thenius suppose, but contains nothing more than a mistaken attempt to restore the missing link. It is true the Vulgate contains the same filling up as the Septuagint, but with one alteration, which upsets the assertion made by Thenius, that the repetition of the expression , , caused the reading contained in the Septuagint to be dropped out of the Hebrew text. For the text of the Vulgate runs as follows: Surrexit autem Samul et ascendit de Galgalis in Gabaa Benjamin. Et reliqui populi ascenderunt post Saul obviam populo, qui expugnabant eos venientes de Galgala in Gabaa in colle Benjamin. Et recensuit Saul, etc. <\/em> Jerome<\/em> has therefore rendered the first two clauses of 1Sa 13:15<\/span> in perfect accordance with the Hebrew text; and the addition which follows is nothing more than a gloss that has found its way into his translation from the Itala, and in which de Galgala in colle Benjamin <\/em> is still retained, whereas Jerome<\/em> himself rendered de Galgalis <\/em>.) <\/p>\n 1Sa 13:16<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The two clauses of this verse are circumstantial clauses: “ But Saul, and Jonathan his son, and the people that were with him, were sitting<\/em>, i.e., tarrying, in Geba of Benjamin<\/em> (the present Jeba; see at 1Sa 13:3<\/span>); and the Philistines had encamped at Michmash<\/em>.” Just as in 1Sa 13:2-4<\/span> it is not stated when or why Saul went from Michmash or Geba to Gilgal, but this change in his position is merely hinted at indirectly at the close of 1Sa 13:4<\/span>; so here Saul’s return from Gilgal to Geba with the fighting men who remained with him is not distinctly mentioned, but simply taken for granted as having already occurred.<\/p>\n 1Sa 13:17-18<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Then the spoiler went out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies. is made subject to the verb to define the mode of action (see Ewald<\/em>, 279, c<\/em>.); and rashim <\/em> is used here, as in 1Sa 11:11<\/span>. , according to the context, is a hostile band that went out to devastate the land. The definite article points it out as well known. One company took the road to Ophrah<\/em> into the land of Shual<\/em>, i.e., went in a north-easterly direction, as, according to the Onom<\/em>., Ophrah<\/em> of Benjamin was five Roman miles to the east of Bethel (see at Jos 18:23<\/span>). Robinson<\/em> supposes it to have been on the site of Tayibeh<\/em>. The land of Shual (fox-land) is unknown; it may possibly have been identical with the land of Saalim<\/em> (1Sa 9:5<\/span>). The other company turned on the road to Beth-horon (Beit-ur: see at Jos 10:11<\/span>), that is to say, towards the west; the third, “the way to the territory that rises above the valley of Zeboim<\/em> towards the desert.” These descriptions are obscure; and the valley of Zeboim<\/em> altogether unknown. There is a town of this name ( , different from , Deu 29:22<\/span>; Gen 14:2<\/span>, Gen 14:8<\/span>; or , Hos 11:8<\/span>, in the vale of Siddim) mentioned in Neh 11:34<\/span>, which was inhabited by Benjaminites, and was apparently situated in the south-eastern portion of the land of Benjamin, to the north-east of Jerusalem, from which it follows that the third company pursued its devastating course in a south-easterly direction from Michmash towards Jericho. “ The wilderness<\/em> ” is probably the desert of Judah. The intention of the Philistines in carrying out these devastating expeditions, was no doubt to entice the men who were gathered round Saul and Jonathan out of their secure positions at Gibeah and Geba, and force them to fight.<\/p>\n 1Sa 13:19-21<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> The Israelites could not offer a successful resistance to these devastating raids, as there was no smith to be found in the whole land: “ For the Philistines thought the Hebrews might make themselves sword or spear<\/em> ” ( followed by , “to say, or think, that not,” equivalent to being unwilling that it should be done). Consequently (as the words clearly imply) when they proceeded to occupy the land of Israel as described in 1Sa 13:5<\/span>, they disarmed the people throughout, i.e., as far as they penetrated, and carried off the smiths, who might have been able to forge weapons; so that, as is still further related in 1Sa 13:20<\/span>, all Israel was obliged to go to the Philistines, every one to sharpen his edge-tool, and his ploughshare, and his axe, and his chopper. According to Isa 2:4<\/span>; Mic 4:3<\/span>, and Joe 3:10<\/span>, is an iron instrument used in agriculture; the majority of the ancient versions render it ploughshare<\/em>. The word is striking after the previous (from ); and the meaning of both words is uncertain. According to the etymology, might denote any kind of edge-tool, even the ploughshare. The second is rendered (his sickle) by the lxx, and sarculum <\/em> by Jerome<\/em>, a small garden hoe for loosening and weeding the soil. The fact that the word is connected with , the axe or hatchet, favours the idea that it signifies a hoe<\/em> or spade<\/em> rather than a sickle. Some of the words in 1Sa 13:21<\/span> are still more obscure. , which is the reading adopted by all the earlier translators, indicates that the result is about to be given of the facts mentioned before: “ And there came to pass<\/em>,” i.e., so that there came to pass (or arose), , “ a blunting of the edges<\/em>.” , bluntness, from , to tear, hence to make blunt, is confirmed by the Arabic futar <\/em>, gladius fissuras habens<\/em>, obtusus ensis <\/em>, whereas the meaning to hammer, i.e., to sharpen by hammering, cannot be established. The insertion of the article before is as striking as the omission of it before ; also the stat. abs<\/em>. instead of the construct . These anomalies render it a very probable conjecture that the reading may have been ( inf. Hiph. nomin<\/em>.). Accordingly the rendering would be, “ so that bluntness of the edges occurred in the edge-tools, and the ploughshares, and the trident, and the axes, and the setting of the goad<\/em>.” is to be regarded as a nom. comp<\/em>. like our trident, denoting an instrument with three prongs, according to the Chaldee and the Rabbins (see Ges.<\/em> Thes<\/em>. p. 1219). , stimulus<\/em>, is probably a pointed instrument generally, since the meaning goad is fully established in the case of in Ecc 12:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n (Note: 1Sa 13:21<\/span> runs very differently in the lxx, namely, , , and Thenius and Bttcher propose an emendation of the Hebrew text accordingly, so as to obtain the following meaning: “And the sharpening of the edges in the case of the spades and ploughshares was done at three shekels a tooth (i.e., three shekels each), and for the axe and sickle it was the same” (Thenius); or, “and the same for the sickles, and for the axes, and for setting the prong” (Bttcher). But here also it is easy enough to discover that the lxx had not another text before them that was different from the Masoretic text, but merely confounded with , , and took , which was unintelligible to them, e conjectura <\/em> for , altogether regardless of the sense or nonsense of their own translation. The latest supporters of this senseless rendering, however, have neither undertaken to prove the possibility of translating ( ), “each single piece” (i.e., each), or inquired into the value of money at that time, so as to see whether three shekels would be an unexampled charge for the sharpening of an axe or sickle.) <\/p>\n 1Sa 13:22<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> On the day of battle, therefore, the people with Saul and Jonathan were without either sword or spear; Saul and Jonathan were the only persons provided with them. The account of the expedition of the Israelites, and their victory over the Ammonites, given in 1Sa 13:11<\/span>, is apparently at variance with this description of the situation of the Israelites, since the war in question not only presupposes the possession of weapons by the Israelites, but must also have resulted in their capturing a considerable quantity. The discrepancy is very easily removed, however, when we look carefully at all the circumstances. For instance, we can hardly picture the Israelites to ourselves as amply provided with ordinary weapons in this expedition against the Ammonites. Moreover, the disarming of the Israelites by the Philistines took place for the most part if not entirely after this expedition, viz., at the time when the Philistines swept over the land with an innumerable army after Jonathan had smitten their garrison at Geba (1Sa 13:3<\/span>, 1Sa 13:5<\/span>), so that the fighting men who gathered round Saul and Jonathan after that could hardly bring many arms with them. Lastly, the words “there was neither sword nor spear found in the hands of all the people with Saul and Jonathan” must not be too closely pressed, but simply affirm that the 600 fighting men of Saul and Jonathan were not provided with the necessary arms, because the Philistines had prevented the possibility of their arming themselves in the ordinary way by depriving the people of all their smiths.<\/p>\n 1Sa 13:23<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> 1Sa 13:23<\/span> forms the transition to the heroic act of Jonathan described in 1 Samuel 14.: “ An outpost of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash<\/em>;” i.e., the Philistines pushed forward a company of soldiers to the pass ( , the crossing place) of Michmash, to prevent an attack being made by the Israelites upon their camp. Between Geba<\/em> and Michmash<\/em> there runs the great deep Wady es Suweinit<\/em>, which goes down from Beitin and Bireh (Bethel and Beeroth) to the valley of the Jordan, and intersects the ridge upon which the two places are situated, so that the sides of the wady form very precipitous walls. When Robinson<\/em> was travelling from Jeba to Mukhmas he had to go down a very steep and rugged path into this deep wady ( Pal<\/em>. ii. p. 116). “The way,” he says in his Biblical Researches<\/em>, p. 289, “was so steep, and the rocky steps so high, that we were compelled to dismount; while the baggage mules got along with great difficulty. Here, where we crossed, several short side wadys came in from the south-west and north-west. The ridges between these terminate in elevating points projecting into the great wady; and the most easterly of these bluffs on each side were probably the outposts of the two garrisons of Israel and the Philistines. The road passes around the eastern side of the southern hill, the post of Israel, and then strikes up over the western part of the northern one, the post of the Philistines, and the scene of Jonathan’s adventure.”<\/p>\n (16) Gibeah of Benjamin.<\/strong>Saul and his son, uniting their sadly diminished forces, entrench themselves at Geba, in a strong position at the end of a pass, whence they could watch the movements of the Philistines. Their small number forbade any idea of an attack on the enemy.<\/p>\n The English translators wrongly here substitute Gibeah of Benjamin for Geba of Benjamin, probably led astray by the mention of Gibeah in the preceding verse.<\/p>\n POSITION, MOVEMENTS, AND CONDITION OF THE TWO ARMIES, 1Sa 13:16-23<\/span>.<\/p>\n 16<\/strong>. <\/strong> Gibeah of Benjamin <\/strong> Rather, Geba, <\/em> according to the margin, for this also was a city of Benjamin. Jos 18:24<\/span>; Jos 21:17<\/span>. Many interpreters have, like our translators, confounded this place with Gibeah; but it was some three miles distant. See on 1Sa 13:3<\/span>. It is quite likely that after he had smitten the Philistine garrison Jonathan held this place, and did not withdraw to Gilgal with his father; and after Saul’s unsuccessful attempt to muster the people at Gilgal, that monarch, with the six hundred that did not desert him, went up to reinforce Jonathan at Geba. The Philistine army lay encamped upon the heights of Michmash, in full view of Saul and Jonathan, and separated by a deep valley between.<\/p>\n 1Sa 13:16 And Saul, and Jonathan his son, and the people [that were] present with them, abode in Gibeah of Benjamin: but the Philistines encamped in Michmash.<\/p>\n Ver. 16. Abode in Gibeah of Benjamin.<\/strong> ] His own country, where he was likely to have the best assistance of his allies, but especially of Samuel’s good company and prayers.<\/p>\n Gibeah. Probably the Geba of 1Sa 13:3. <\/p>\n Gibeah: Heb. Gebah, 1Sa 13:3 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jos 18:28 – Gibeath 1Sa 13:11 – Michmash 1Sa 14:2 – in the uttermost 1Sa 31:2 – Jonathan<\/p>\n The results of Saul’s disobedience 13:16-23<\/span><\/p>\n The writer explained the military disaster that resulted from Saul’s disobedience in 1Sa 13:16-18. Saul’s army dwindled and the enemy continued to move around his capital city, Gibeah, freely.<\/p>\n Saul evidently led his troops from Gilgal to Geba where some of the Israelite soldiers camped. Saul himself proceeded back to Gibeah (1Sa 14:2). The Philistines had posted a larger camp of their soldiers just north of the Wadi Suweinit ravine that ran between Geba and Michmash. The Philistines used their camp (garrison, 1Sa 13:23) at Michmash as a base for raiding parties. From Michmash these raiders went north toward Ophrah, west toward Beth-horon, and probably southeast toward the wilderness, specifically the valley of Zeboim (exact site unknown).<\/p>\n The main physical advantage the Philistines enjoyed was their ability to smelt iron. This advanced technology gave them a strong military edge over the Israelites. [Note: Dothan, p. 20.] <\/span> As in the days of Deborah and Barak (Jdg 5:8), the Philistines still had the advantage of superior weapons and the power to restrict the Israelites’ use of iron implements.<\/p>\n 2. Saul’s struggle against the Philistines 13:16-14:23<\/span><\/p>\n As a result of Saul’s disobedience he began to struggle, whereas his son Jonathan, who sought to follow the Lord faithfully, became increasingly successful.<\/p>\n And Saul, and Jonathan his son, and the people [that were] present with them, abode in Gibeah of Benjamin: but the Philistines encamped in Michmash. 16. in Gibeah of Benjamin ] Heb. in Geba of Benjamin. The positions of 1Sa 13:2-3 are now reversed, the Philistines occupying Michmash on the northern side of the valley, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 13:16”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"