1 Samuel 10:17-20

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—

1 Samuel 10:17. “Mizpeh.” See on 1 Samuel 7:9. “Unto the Lord.” “Implying the presence of the ark, or the tabernacle, or the High Priest’s ephod.” Comp. 1 Samuel 10:19.” (Biblical Commentary).

1 Samuel 10:20 “The family of Matri … and Saul the son of Kish was taken.” “When the heads of the households in this family came, and after the different individuals in the households were taken, the lot fell upon Saul the son of Kish. The historian proceeds at once to the final result of the casting of the lots, without describing the intermediate steps any further.… As the result of the lot was regarded as a divine decision, not only was Saul to be accredited by this act as the king appointed by the Lord, but he himself was also to be the more fully assured of his own election on the part of God.” (Keil). “How the lots were cast is not said; commonly it was by throwing tablets (Joshua 18:6; Joshua 18:8, etc.), but sometimes by drawing from a vessel.” (Numbers 33:54). The latter seems to have been the method here employed.” (Erdmann).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 1 Samuel 10:17

SAUL’S PUBLIC RECOGNITION

I.—It is a mark of the greatest folly and ingratitude to forsake old and tried friends for those who are new and untried. This was what Israel was now doing. They were setting aside an old and faithful human friend in the person of Samuel for the young man of whom they knew nothing except that he was endowed with a fine physical frame. But they were guilty of far greater sin and folly. Although God had elected their king, yet we have seen (see on 1 Samuel 8:6) He had only done so because He would not compel them to acquiesce in His plans for their welfare; and in insisting upon having “a king like the nations,” they had forsaken him who “Himself had saved them out of all their adversities and tribulation,” who had “delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all kingdoms, and of them that oppressed them” (1 Samuel 10:18). God had indeed been a friend whose faithfulness had been tried and found unfailing, and in desiring a human king Israel gave proof of how ungrateful men can be, and how an apparent advantage and a wrong desire indulged in can blind men to their own interest.

II. Those who are thus foolish and ungrateful often find that those whom they have rejected are still indispensable to their welfare. Israel had still to look to Samuel to guard them against some of the evil fruits which would spring from their own self-will. To him they owed the preservation of some national liberty—he alone it was who was able to tell them the “manner of the kingdom,” and who “wrote it in a book” and laid it up for the use of future generations. And they had to look to the King whom they had forsaken to preserve the life and to give success to the king whom they had chosen in His place. It is vain for men to try and free themselves from obligations even to good men—they must either directly or indirectly be indebted to them. But it is far more useless and foolish for men to try and do without God, while every good gift which they enjoy comes from Him in whom they “live and move and have their being.” On the first day when Israel set out to do without God, they are found appealing to Him for guidance and help.

III. Those prove themselves to be true friends who are willing still to help those who have thus rejected them. That God was still careful for the interests of the children whom He had “nourished and brought up,” but who “had rebelled against Him” (Isaiah 1:2)—that He was still kind to these “unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35) Israelites—shows how infinitely good and gracious He is, and how unfailing is His friendship, and that Samuel should have borne himself as he did under the circumstances shows that he was a true and real patriot and friend.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

1 Samuel 10:22. I cannot blame Saul for hiding himself from a kingdom, especially of Israel. Honour is heavy when it comes on the best terms; how should it be otherwise, when all men’s cares are cast on one; but most of all in a troubled estate? No man can put to sea without danger, but he that launcheth forth in a tempest expecteth the hardest event. Such was the condition of Israel.… Well did Saul know the difference between a peaceful government and the perilous and wearisome tumults of war. The quietest throne is full of cares, the perplexed of dangers. Cares and dangers drove Saul into this corner, to hide his head from a crown: these made him choose rather to lie obscurely among the baggage of his tent than to sit gloriously in the throne of state.—Bp. Hall.

Whether this act of Saul arose from a culpable distrust of God, or an excessive diffidence in himself, we cannot determine, but it forms a singular contrast with the spirit that marks his after life; his eager and extreme jealousy of a rival, both in his power and popularity. This should convince us how little we know of ourselves till placed in circumstances that may call forth our peculiar tempers or passions; for often we are as different persons at different periods of our lives, as Saul at this juncture from Saul after the lapse of some years, when with ungovernable violence he sought the life of David, dreading him as a competitor for the throne.—Lindsay.

1 Samuel 10:25. In the Word of God there is a clear definition of the rights of the ruled as well as of the rights of the ruler. No man is at liberty to tyrannize over another.… It is a solemn thought that all our engagements are laid up before the Lord. They are held in all their integrity by him, and he never fails to fulfil his part.—Steel.

1 Samuel 10:26. This verbal declaration of God was not enough. There must also be an actual one. God’s election is not vain and feeble; if it be real, it must prove itself in the gifts and deeds of him who is chosen. The people felt this, even those who acknowledged the election with all their heart. Saul himself also felt it. Both waited for the future actual ratification (chap. 11). Until then everything remained as it had been.—Hengstenberg.

1 Samuel 10:27. If Saul had attached an overweening importance to himself we should have seen a very different course of conduct. But it was the absence of this which saved him. The utterances of the men of Belial proceeded on the presumption that at the moment self-importance was the prominent principle at work in Saul’s heart; it was a shaft aimed at this, as they imagined that it would not only be there, but uppermost. Mistaken, however, as to the mark, they failed in hitting and wounding.… Many are the blessings attendant on humility, and among them this is not the least, that it denies opportunity to those who would seek to wound us through pride.—Miller.

Notwithstanding that they

(1) questioned his capacity,
(2) despised his power,
(3) refused him homage and help, he was as though he were deaf, thereby showing
(1) self-control,
(2) prudence,
(3) humility. Apply this to
(1) public officers,
(2) employers of servants and other subordinates,
(3) persons in society,

(4) church officials. There is a high sense in which God acts thus, and bad men imagine that He is really deaf. (Psalms 73; Psalms 94:7; Job 22:13).—Translator of Lange’s Commentary.

1 Samuel 10:26. Saul was to have one other proof that without hesitation he might in all the future of his life seek and find his all in God. What is a man without friends, especially if he have great responsibilities pressing around him, and great cares devolving on him? And who are our best friends? Not those who talk about us the most—not those who trumpet our praises and advertise our talents; but those who think of us in our homes, and who come, knowing we are careworn, to ask if they can help us, and who stand ready to do us a service which only God’s eye can see, a kindness the knowledge of which is confined to our house, and to the chambers of the heart made glad by this persional attention. If ever man wanted such attentions it must have been Saul, when he found himself all at once king over Israel.… The election is over, the excitement is past, its bustle subsided. He must go home as well as the rest of the people; but, ah! in how different a state of mind from theirs. Men can often bear up in public under circumstances beneath which they break down immediately when alone.… Real friends know this, and hence they will not say, because they see a man keep up in public, “Ah, he is quite equal to his duties; he will do very well now, we may leave him,” but rather they will, because he has kept up before others, expect it is all the more probable that he will not do so in private, and they will think of him at home, and they will follow him thither with their prayers at least; but if the opportunity serves, with their presence too. They will show that they have hearts—hearts in the worthiest sense of the term—and that their hearts have been indeed touched. All this comes before us in the history. Saul is not allowed to go home alone. No; he must be sustained by sympathy and friendship; he shall not feel solitary, he shall not go unattended. But mark that word—God. Even these emotions of sympathy—these proofs of attachment—these manifestations of heart—are not, by the historian, allowed to pass before us as just the natural working of men’s own minds under the peculiar circumstances of the case. God was in them. God excited them, and in the fact that God touched their hearts and disposed them favourably, Saul was to gain a new encouragement, a new assurance of being in the path of duty. This power, too, which God possesses of touching the hearts of men, is one which it were well if we more distinctly recognised and completely confided in.… It is much better, easier, safer, more dignified to get at men’s hearts through God’s power over them, than to seek their good opinion by any lower effort.—Miller.