Identifying Saul as the First King of Israel (1 Sam. 9:1–10:16)

In this section of 1 Samuel we can see the beginning of a change in the leadership practices of Israel as the form moves from the leadership of judges to that of kings, with the new style going to last until the exile. This transition is described in 1 Samuel 8–12 and involves the secret identification of Saul as the first king (9:1–10:16), his public coronation at Mizpah (10:17-27), his subsequent leading the army to victory over the Ammonites (ch. 11), and then Samuel’s farewell address to the people (ch. 12). From another point of view, in the book we also move from Samuel to Saul, another main character in the book, although to begin with Samuel still retains a high profile. There are several comments that we should keep in mind as we progress.

First, we saw in our previous study that Israel’s desire for a king was basically a rejection of God’s methods in favour of the methods of the surrounding nations. This rejection did not mean that God was no longer in control or that he was no longer interested in his people; it did mean that he would chastise them, and the giving of Saul as king was an evidence of this divine chastisement. It is important that we remember this when we read about some of Saul’s actions in later years when he disobeys God.

Second, there are some wrong actions that God’s people take which seem to have irreversible consequences. When Israel went down the road of having a king, God gave them over to their choice and he did not reverse the choice throughout their history until the monarchy reached its doom in the exile in Babylon. This type of thing has happened repeatedly throughout church history. There can be long-term effects of some choices.

Third, although the institution of the monarchy would not be removed until the exile, God would show his mercy many times in the situation by sending good and godly kings, such as David and Hezekiah, who would attempt to lead the people in the ways of God.

Fourth, as we look at Saul’s character the question that may be in our minds concerns whether or not he was a genuine believer who became a backslider or a professing believer who became an apostate. This is a difficult question to answer, perhaps an impossible one, but we might opt for one after we have studied his life. At this stage I would mention two factors from the rest of the Bible, one which suggests he was regarded highly and one that points to the opposite. The features that suggests he was regarded highly is that people in Israel called their sons after him, the most notable being Saul of Tarsus; the feature that points to a negative assessment is the omission of his name from the list of the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11.

Saul and the lost animals (9:1-14)

This section of the history of Saul highlights God’s providence in the way events worked out in order for Saul to meet Samuel. The request from his father that he look for the asses, the route that he took in the search, their arrival at the city with just enough money to give to the prophet, their coming at a time when Samuel would be at home, and their reaching to the city exactly when Samuel was walking out of it.

The section also shows that Saul had many qualities that marked him out as the kind of king the people would approve, be it is impressive genealogy, or his physical appearance or his tenacity to stick at a task or his willingness to receive counsel from a servant. The words of Samuel in 9:20 indicate that Israel had already noticed that Saul would be their type of king. These details don’t point to spiritual qualities but to the fact that God was giving to Israel the kind of king that they wanted. I suspect the author is contrasting Saul’s background to that of David, the man God chose to be king even while the people’s choice, Saul, was on the throne.

But there is one detail that would raise the reader’s concern about Saul. In verse 5 Saul and his servant reach the area of Zuph, which was where Samuel came from (his father was descended from Zuph, 1 Samuel 1:1), in particular the town of Ramah, where Samuel lived. Saul’s home village was Gibeah, which was only five miles from Ramah, yet Saul seemed totally unaware that there was a servant of God there. His question in verse 18, although addressed to Samuel, suggests that Saul did not know what Samuel looked like. Yet all Israel knew about Samuel, so Saul’s lack of knowledge suggests that he had very little interest in religion. This assessment seems to be confirmed by the mocking response to Saul’s prophesying by those who knew him (1 Sam. 10:11).

Saul with Samuel at the feast (9:15-24)

Saul may not know who the prophet is but Samuel knows who Saul is because the Lord had informed him the day before that Saul would come there and identified him personally just before Saul spoke. In the information that Samuel was given, the Lord says that he has a purpose of mercy for his people and a feeling of compassion towards them, and this despite their rebellion. Was this purpose of God realised in Saul’s experience? I think the answer is yes and no. He did defeat the Philistines at times but in the end the Philistines killed him. It was David who defeated them.

This raises an important aspect of God’s promises, and that is that often they are conditional on the recipient obeying his commands. Saul did not obey God’s commands and in judgment he lost to those whom he would have defeated had he remained true to God.

After inviting him to the chief place at the meal Samuel speaks to Saul in a prophetic manner, saying three things, that he would describe Saul’s heart to him, that the donkeys had been found, and that he was the one Israel wanted to be their next king. Saul’s answer is rather deceptive because it contains a mixture of truth and untruths. Benjamin probably was the smallest tribe in Israel but Saul’s family certainly was not the least of the families in Benjamin.

What did Samuel mean when he said that he would tell Saul everything that was in his heart? He does not seem to mean Saul’s concern for the donkeys because Samuel assures Saul that they have been found. It is unlikely that Saul could have conceived he was in line for such a prominent role, so Samuel was not referring to that, and in any case he went on to tell Saul that he was the popular choice. I suspect Samuel wanted Saul to know the kind of man he was before he would become king.

This is an important aspect of preparation for any person who intends to serve God, all the more so if the role is a public one which will give opportunities for the person’s worse tendencies to show themselves, as they did in Saul. When the Lord used Samuel to highlight these features in Saul’s heart it was a sign of God’s gracious desire to help Saul overcome them. Similarly when the Lord uses one of his servants to point out defects in our hearts, often without the person knowing he is doing so, it is a sign of his grace.

Saul receives divine confirmation

The significance of anointing was that it indicated a person was a servant of a higher power. It was a common practice at that time for an emperor to anoint a vassal king. In Israel, priests and prophets were anointed, and this indicated that they were primarily servants of God. The anointing also pointed to the fact that God’s power would be available to his servant to enable him to fulfil the particular role he had in mind. Samuel, despite his awareness that Saul was given by God as an act of judgement, indicated his own allegiance to Saul by kissing him. To kiss a person was not merely a sign of affection but also of loving submission.

When Saul left Samuel he was a different person (10:9). This expression, ‘God gave him another heart,’ does not mean that he was now regenerate. Rather it means, as Matthew Henry put it, ‘He has no longer the heart of a husbandman, which is low, and mean, and narrow, and concerned only about his corn and cattle; but the heart of a statesman, a general, a prince.’ God by this anointing equipped Saul for his role.

Samuel gave to Saul four signs that would ensure the Lord’s work would prosper under Saul’s reign. Three signs would be fulfilled on Saul’s journey home, and these three signs were evidences that Samuel had spoken the truth, whereas the fourth, that of going to Gilgal at a future but unspecified occasion would be the fourth. Do the signs signify anything beyond the fact that Samuel spoke the truth?

The first sign was that two men would meet him and tell him that the asses had been found and that his father was worried about him. This would happen beside Rachel’s tomb. Matthew Henry says that this sign would teach Saul of his own mortality, that although he would have a prominent role he had to keep in mind that he would die.

The second sign was that he would meet three men on their way to worship at Bethel, and one of them would share his food with him. I suspect this is a sign that Saul should value the contribution the people of God would make to the success of his kingdom.

The third sign was to take place near a Philistine garrison on a hill where there was also a place of worship, which also seems to have been Saul‘s hometown. This in itself shows how the Philistines respected the power of Israel’s God, no doubt after their own experiences in having the ark of God. But it also shows that the Philistines had made progress in conquering parts of the land. There, in the face of his enemies, God gave to Saul a sign, that is, the special presence of the Spirit, that he would overpower them if he depended on the Lord.

Prophecy here does not refer to prediction or to preaching but to praise. This shows that the term has several meanings, and the meaning in each case has to be decided by the context.

The fourth sign was not fulfilled until two years later, and the incident is recorded in 1 Samuel 13. Despite the lessons from the first three tests, Saul failed the fourth test, and his disobedience on that day cost him the kingdom, even although he was to reign for another four decades. We will look at that incident later, so all I will say about it is that Saul’s failure to fulfil God’s requirements is further evidence that he was not a renewed person.