Chapter 13

1 Saul’s selected band. 3 He calleth the Hebrews to Gilgal against the Philistines, whose garrison Jonathan had smitten. 5 The Philistines’ great host. 6 The distress of the Israelites. 8 Saul, weary of staying for Samuel, sacrificeth. 11 Samuel reproveth him. 17 The three spoiling bands of the Philistines. 19 The policy of the Philistines, to suffer no smith in Israel.

1. Saul reigned one year. The meaning of this passage of Scripture is not clear, as all translators and commentators have agreed. A literal translation of the Hebrew text was as we have it today reads, “Saul year[s] old when he began to reign, and two years he reigned over Israel” (on “year[s] old” see Vol. I, p. 181; also on Gen. 5:32). Ever since the days of the first Bible version this text has puzzled translators. Earlier editions of the LXX avoided the difficulty by omitting the verse entirely. The Targums paraphrased it to read, “Saul was as innocent as a one-year-old child when he began to reign.” The Syriac gives it, “When Saul had reigned one or two years.” Like preceding translations of the text, that of the KJV is a paraphrase that gives, not the Hebrew as we have it today, but what the translators thought the original text of the Hebrew to have been. The RSV assumes two omissions: “Saul was … years old when he began to reign; and he reigned … and two years over Israel.”

Some commentators agree that here is doubtless an instance where an omission has occurred in the process of copying, though at what time in the transmission of the text the omission may have occurred no one can tell (see Vol. I, p. 15). If the extant Hebrew text is the result of an omission, it stands as evidence of the carefulness and conscientiousness of later copyists in their work of producing new manuscripts, for they did not tamper with the text itself but left it as they found it even though its meaning was obscure.

Little is to be gained by conjecture; however, a tentative explanation may be offered. The form of the statement under consideration corresponds exactly to that of the formula commonly used by Bible writers in giving a king’s age when he began to reign and the duration of his reign. The corresponding formula for David appears in 2 Sam. 5:4 (see also 2 Kings 21:1; 24:8, 18; etc.). If omissions similar to those that appear to have occurred in 1 Sam. 13:1 had been made in a comparable text, such as 2 Kings 21:1, it would read: “Manasseh was … years old when he began to reign, and reigned … and five years in Jerusalem.” In basic construction the two passages are identical. The insertion of one figure for the age of Saul when he became king, and another for the length of his reign, would make the statement parallel to the statements for David and other kings. In the original text the phrase “… and two” may have read “forty” (see Acts 13:21). The Hebrew text of 1 Sam. 13:1 as it now stands thus implies that it originally constituted a statement of Saul’s age and the length of his reign. If it does not, then Saul is the only Hebrew king for whom the OT makes no such statement.

According to another explanation 1 Sam. 13:1 should read, “Saul reigned one year; and he reigned two years over Israel.” That is, he had completed the first year of his reign (see p. 138) and was in the second year when the events of this chapter occurred. It must be admitted, however, that to construe the Hebrew of 1 Sam. 13:1 to mean that the events of ch. 13 occurred in Saul’s second year is unnatural and a construction without an exact parallel in the Bible record of the kings.

The passage may reasonably be understood as meaning that Saul made an attempt to subdue the Philistines in his second year, although the first real blow—that of Jonathan, here recorded—came somewhat later. Thus understood, there is harmony with the translation and first interpretation here mentioned for 1 Sam. 13:1. If it be concluded that PP 616 seems to be premised on the KJV interpretation of this verse, it might be pointed out that the statement itself can be taken as referring to the first attempt. But no matter what translation or interpretation is given this passage, we are still left in perplexity as to the original reading of the text. However, in this as in other instances of difficult and obscure texts, no question of doctrine, and thus of our salvation, is involved.

2. Gibeah. Gibeah is now generally identified with Tell elРFuµl, a lookout point on the crest of the central range of mountains, 3 1/2 mi. (5.6 km.) north of Jerusalem. The ruins of what is believed to have been Saul’s fortress-capital there have been recently been excavated (see Vol. I, p. 124).

3. The garrison. Heb. nesib, “pillar,” “prefect,” “deputy,” “garrison,” or “post.” Commentators have generally felt that the meaning “prefect,” or “governor,” should be understood here as being more in harmony with the context (but see PP 616). In Gen. 19:26 nesib is rendered “pillar,” and in 1 Kings 4:19 and 2 Chron. 8:10 as “officer” or “officers.”

Geba. About 4 mi. (6.4 km.) northeast of this Gibeah is Wadi Medineh, a great crack in the surface of the earth, hardly noticeable even a short distance from the brink. Its sides rise as impassable precipices, hundreds of feet in height. On the southwest side of the wadi is Geba, and 1 3/4 mi. (2.8 km.) to the northeast across this wadi lies the town of Michmash, on a tableland some 700 ft. (213.4 m.) lower than the district around Gibeah (Tell elРFuµl). The land to the east of Michmash slopes gently for some distance, making good farming land, and there is a clear view of the approach from Jericho. Bethel is about 6 mi. (9.6 km.) north of Gibeah and more than 100 ft. (30.5 m.) higher than Gibeah.

Michmash would command the main road from Jericho and the Jordan valley to Bethel, and the chief highway running north from Jerusalem to Shechem. Saul posted his son Jonathan and a third of the armed soldiery at Gibeah, while, with two thirds of the company, he guarded the approach to Bethel and Gibeah from the east. This would be the most likely road the Ammonites would take should they seek to avenge themselves on Saul for his victory at Jabesh-gilead. He did not anticipate trouble from the west, for there was peace with the Philistines (ch. 7:13).

The Battle of Michmash

The Philistines. Although the Philistines were not at war with Israel, they nevertheless maintained posts in the hills, such as the one at Geba southwest of Michmash, across the wadi from it and over 200 ft. higher. The word nesib, translated “garrison,” comes from the verb nasab, “to take one’s stand,” “to be stationed,” that is, by appointment or in the line of duty. Not far away, at Ramah (see on ch. 1:1), was a school of the prophets organized by Samuel. Evidently Samuel tried to counter the heathen Philistine influence by placing his school nearby, hoping thus to draw the people back to the worship of Jehovah. If only the influence of the prophetic school had permeated the individual lives of the inhabitants of Geba, so that the Philistines could see the true import of God’s salvation, bloody warfare might have been averted and many Philistines might have accepted God, even as Naaman the Syrian did in later years (2 Kings 5).

Let the Hebrews hear. The noun “Hebrew,” used of the Hebrew people, occurs only 35 times in the entire Bible, 31 times in the OT and 4 times in the NT. Of the 31 OT references, 16 occur in connection with Israel’s stay in Egypt and 5 in connection with this war against the Philistines (chs. 13 and 14). In contrast, the word “Israel” is used hundreds of times in the Scriptures, and the question arises as to why such a contrast should occur in these two instances. But one fact is clear. The term “Hebrew” is always used by foreigners or by Israelites when speaking of themselves to foreigners. It is now generally believed that “Hebrew” was the common name by which the Israelites were known to their neighbors (see on Gen. 10:21; 14:13). Pharaoh and his people seem to have used both names interchangeably (see Ex. 1:16; 5:2; 14:5; etc.; see also on 1 Sam. 13:7).

4. Was had in abomination. Perhaps better, “made themselves odious.” The same verb is used in describing manna that had been left overnight (Ex. 16:20, 24).

After Saul to Gilgal. Inasmuch as the kingdom had been confirmed at Gilgal (ch. 11:14, 15), Saul called all Israel to assemble there rather than at Gibeah or Michmash, where their preparations could be observed by the Philistines. The Philistines would have little difficulty in reaching the latter place, by marching through the various tributary wadies. It is difficult to understand why Saul did not ask Israel to reinforce the army already stationed in the district of Benjamin. That would have been near the home of Samuel and close to the sacred site of Bethel (see on ch. 1:1). The rocks of the wadi at Geba would make a magnificent fortress, and certainly the residents of that district knew more about the defensive terrain than did the Philistines, now bent on vengeance. In his dilemma Saul seems to have remembered what Samuel had told him about going to Gilgal (ch. 10:8).

5. Thirty thousand. The Lucian text of the LXX and the Syriac read “three thousand.” The difference between the Hebrew words for 3 and 30 is slight, and one might easily be mistaken for the other.

6. Hide themselves. Remembering keenly the defeat years previously near Shiloh, and especially in the absence of Samuel, the Israelites were panic-stricken. The mobilization of the Philistines so frightened the people that Saul was unable to maintain order in camp, and morale rapidly deteriorated. Completely forgotten was the victory of a few months ago at Jabesh. Forgotten also were the confessions and sacrifices when, more recently, they had rejoiced before God at this very place (ch. 11:15). What a contrast between their fright and the faith later manifested by Elisha when his servant, terrified by the host of Syrians before the city gate, had his eyes opened to see the mountain full of angelic forces. How important it was at this time of crisis for Saul and the men to wait for the prophet’s counsel and blessing before moving into battle!

7. Hebrews went over. When Saul sounded the call to arms, he said, “Let the Hebrews hear” (v. 3). Yet v. 7 notes that “the Hebrews” fled across Jordan (the words “some of” not being in the original text), while v. 6 states that Israel hid in the caves “in the hill country of Ephraim” (ch. 14:22, RSV). The word “Hebrews” is used consistently by the Philistines in referring to their opponents, but the author of Samuel seems to differentiate between the two terms, “Israel” and “Hebrews,” as, for example, in v. 19, where mention is made of the fact that the Philistines controlled all the workers in iron, “lest the Hebrews make them swords.” In contrast, the author himself says that “the Israelites went down to the Philistines” to have their implements sharpened. The LXX, however, here translates the word “Hebrews” as “slaves.” See on v. 3.

8. Tarried seven days. This does not necessarily mean that Saul had already waited seven full days, and that Samuel did not arrive till the beginning of the eighth day and was therefore a day late in meeting the appointment. It is possible that when the prophet did not appear during the early part of the appointed day (see PP 617, 618), Saul assumed the responsibility of offering the sacrifice. Upon anointing Saul king, Samuel had instructed him with respect to this occasion; he was to go to Gilgal and wait there till Samuel should come (see ch. 10:8; cf. PP 617). Samuel did, however, arrive soon after the time appointed for the sacrifice, only to discover Saul’s act of disobedience (ch. 13:10).

11. The people were scattered. In predicting Israel’s request for a king, Moses warned that the ruler was not to “multiply horses,” that is, to trust in material equipment for protection (Deut. 17:16; cf. Isa. 31:3). On the contrary, the king, as leader of the nation and an example to the people, was to procure a copy of the law, become a diligent student of it, and obey the instruction there recorded.

But Saul, thinking of the military equipment of Israel’s neighbors, with their standing armies, came to think of safety and success apart from simple faith and trust in God. With this concept in his own mind, he failed to inspire his men with the courage that results from faith in God. Lacking this, and with no weapons on which to rely, his men—with clearer sight than that of Saul—could see no basis on which to expect victory. The prospect appeared hopeless. Thus it was that at the first intimation of real danger the major part of Saul’s army deserted out of fear for their personal safety, and left him with no more than 600 men at Gilgal. His scouts had brought word of the enemy concentration 11 1/2 mi. (18.4 km.) away, at Michmash, and he feared not only for the nation but also for his own safety.

Saul had forfeited the confidence and respect of his army. Each day more and more of his men deserted. He was completely discouraged. The tide of his popularity was ebbing fast. He was ready to lay blame for the situation completely on Samuel, who had failed to appear. Saul felt aggrieved that Samuel was not present. In this spirit he met the prophet with no offer of apology but rather in a spirit of self-justification. What a contrast to the spirit in which he had prepared for the attack on Ammon!

13. Thou hast done foolishly. That is, in permitting feelings rather than confidence in God, based on past providences, to be in control. If God be with you, who can be against you? What Gideon did with 300 out of 32,000 men, Saul could certainly accomplish with 600 out of 3,000! But if he refused to have confidence in God’s promises and in the word of His prophet, and manifested an attitude of unbelief and vacillation in a moment of crisis, how could God continue to be with him? Had Saul been willing to humble his heart, how different the history of Israel might have been.

14. Thy kingdom. Saul did not offer as an excuse that he had misunderstood his instructions, or that they were not clearly stated. On the other hand, he frankly admitted the deliberate violation of his instructions in favor of his own wishes. Compare Saul’s position with that of Adam in the Garden of Eden, or contrast it with that of Christ in the mount of temptation. Before entering the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, Christ had the assurance that He was the beloved Son of God. Six weeks later, famished with hunger, and not knowing what was ahead of Him, He patiently waited for divine guidance. It was when He was seemingly neglected, and worn and haggard from mental strain, that Satan made every attempt to shake His confidence in God’s Word. But where Adam failed, and where Saul chose the downward path, Christ won!

Samuel’s rebuke was uttered in such a way as to invite contrition and humility, but in vain. The very presence of the prophet should have brought back memories of Samuel’s solicitude and selfless interest in months past. But alas! All these were forgotten. Saul sought to justify himself by charging that the fault lay with Samuel. As it was with Saul, so it has been with man all through the ages. When troubles press in, fear of impending danger crowds out sensible reasoning and induces a nervous impatience to have the problem settled at once. Under such stress the reason is blinded as to duty and substitutes in its place a critical condemnation of others and a violent determination to justify the course of action thus chosen. Former confidence in God’s protecting and directing watchcare give way to cynical unbelief and finally to rebellion.

15. Gibeah. Heb. gibФah (see on v. 16).

16. Gibeah. The Hebrew here reads Geba, not Gibeah as in v. 15. Geba was directly across the wadi from Michmash (see ch. 14:4, 5, where Geba, not Gibeah, is in the original of v. 5). The confusion in the translation probably arose from the opinion that Geba and Gibeah were only variant spellings of the same place, as older maps still show. It is true that Geba is sometimes called Gibeah, but there seem to have been two places (see on ch. 14:16). If recent excavations, in addition to other Bible clues, have correctly placed Saul’s stronghold at Tell elРFuµl, 3 mi. (5 km.) southwest of Geba and directly north of Jerusalem (see Vol. I, p. 124), Jonathan did not go there, but evidently “abode in” Geba, across from Michmash, as here implied, after he took it from the Philistines (v. 3), and Saul probably joined him after returning from Gilgal.

17. Three companies. Ophrah was probably located where two main roads met, northwest of Jericho. The land of Shual—literally, “the land of jackals”—probably designates the cavernous slopes of the district east of Ophrah as the mountains rapidly fall away from the crest of Mt. Ephraim toward the Jordan. This land is honeycombed with limestone caves—excellent places to hide.

18. Beth-horon. Beth-horon Upper and Beth-horon Lower are 9 1/2 and 11 1/2 mi. (15.2 and 18.4 km.), respectively, west of Michmash, near the Ephraim-Benjamin border, where the mountains drop abruptly to the Shephelah. Zeboim is mentioned in Neh. 11:34 as being in the vicinity of Anathoth and other towns south of Michmash, in the direction of the desert of Judah. The Battle of Michmash shows clearly that the Philistines did not advance toward Gilgal; but by flanking movements toward the north, west, and south, they sought to cut off reinforcements from those of Saul’s men whom they now thought bottled up in the caves to the east of Michmash.

19. No smith. It seems that for a time the Philistines enjoyed practically a monopoly in Canaan on the fabrication of iron and possibly other metals. At this time the iron used in Palestine came from Asia Minor, and was imported through the coastal cities. These, of course, were under the control of the Philistines. Thus it was relatively easy for them to enforce what was, from their point of view, a wise policy by which to keep the Hebrews disarmed.

20. Share. Or, “plowshare.”

Coulter. Or, “mattock.”

Mattock. Or, “sickle.”

21. They had a file. Recent discoveries make it clear that the statement thus translated should read, “the charge was a pim” (RSV; see Vol. I, p. 164). A “pim” was a monetary unit equivalent to 2/3 shekel, that is, 7.6 g. or .27 oz. avoir.

For the mattocks. The Hebrew reads, “for the plowshares and for the mattocks.”

The forks. Heb. lishelosh qilleshon. The meaning is not certain. Lishelosh is from shalosh, which means “to divide into three parts;” it is composed of two words, le, “for,” and shelosh, a “third part.” The word qilleshon is not used elsewhere in the OT, and is of doubtful meaning. The translation “fork” is only a conjecture, based partly on a similar Aramaic word meaning “to be thin,” and the preceding word, lishelosh, which seems to have suggested that the “thin” object, whatever it may have been, was “divided into three parts.” The modern Hebrew translation by Harkavy renders the expression as “three-pronged forks,” which is closer to the meaning of the Hebrew than the word “fork” alone.

The RSV translates lishelosh qilleshon, “a third of a shekel.” Like that of the KJV and others, this translation also is a conjecture, and is probably based on a transposition of letters in the wordqilleshon, reading sheqel, “shekel,” instead of qilleshon, with the on being considered a diminutive.

The translation “fork” is questionable because the “forks” of that time, as in many places throughout the Orient where primitive tools are still in use today, were wooden and not metallic. The Israelites would not be taking wooden forks to the Philistines to be sharpened (see vs. 19–21). Obviously, if lishelosh qilleshon is to be considered a tool, it must have been made by a “smith” (v. 19). In view of the fact that the “pim” of v. 21 is now known to be a monetary unit and not a “file,” the RSV translation, “a third of a shekel,” becomes plausible though by no means conclusive (see Vol. I, p. 164). The translation, “the charge was a pim for the plowshares” (RSV) therefore seems preferable.

22. Neither sword nor spear. After years of Philistine oppression Saul and Jonathan seem to be the only ones who possessed these metal weapons. The rank and file of the army could have had bows and slings—no mean equipment in the hands of experts (see Judges 20:16)—but they could not compete in hand-to-hand combat with the iron weapons of the Philistines. This verse reveals two things: (1) the battle took place before Israel was well organized, probably early in Saul’s reign, and (2) the lack of equipment made it evident to both sides that God intervened on behalf of His people. Saul might rebel, and as a result do many foolish things; but God still wrought for Israel in such a way as to encourage individuals to join His kingdom and place their trust in Him. Saul refused to follow where God led, but Jonathan was ready and eager to do what his father might have done.

Ellen G. White comments

1–23PP 616–622

2, 3 PP 616

4–8PP 617

4–8PP 617

8–10PP 618

8–14PP 625, 627, 634

11–15PP 621

14   PP 636, 723

22   PP 616