the same gift to Saul. On the other hand, the alteration of the text from אביהם (their father) into אביהוּ (his father), according to the lxx, Vulg., Syr., and Arab., which is favoured by Ewald, Thenius, and others, must be rejected, for the simple reason that the question, Who is his father? in the mouth of one of the inhabitants of Gibeah, to whom Saul's father was so well known that they called Saul the son of Kish at once, would have no sense whatever. From this the proverb arose, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” - a proverb which was used to express astonishment at the appearance of any man in a sphere of life which had hitherto been altogether strange to him.
Verses 13-16
When Saul had left off prophesying, and came to Bamah, his uncle asked him and his attendant where they had been; and Saul told him, that as they had not found the asses anywhere, they had gone to Samuel, and had learned from him that the asses were found. But he did not relate the words which had been spoken by Samuel concerning the monarchy, from unambitious humility (cf. 1Sa 10:22, 1Sa 10:23) and not because he was afraid of unbelief and envy, as Thenius follows Josephus in supposing. From the expression “he came to Bamah” (Eng. ver. “to the high place”), we must conclude, that not only Saul's uncle, but his father also, lived in Bamah, as we find Saul immediately afterwards in his own family circle (see 1Sa 10:14.).
Verses 17-27
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. -[1]
- ↑ Thenius follows De Wette, and adduces the incompatibility of 1 Samuel 8 and 1Sa 10:17-27 with 1Sa 9:1-10, 1Sa 9:16, as a proof that in 1Sa 10:17-27 we have a different account of the manner in which Saul became king from that given in 1Sa 9:1-10, 1Sa 9:16, and one which continues the account in 1Sa 8:22. “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 sees no discrepancy here, and observes in his history (Gesch. 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.”
