Passage Viewer

The story of Saul’s election and anointing takes us back to a simple village life, where the overweight and naive Saul stands out in contrast to Samuel’s divine insight, which enables him to predict events and speak mysterious words. The story appears to unfold casually, through coincidence, but the fortunate events align with God’s plan, which Samuel gradually comes to understand in stages.

Without much ceremony, Samuel anoints Saul. He does not inform him of the responsibilities of the anointed one, choosing to reserve that for later communication (10:8); for now, Saul must pay attention to specific events in which the prophet’s words will prove true in one way or another.

This presents a second tradition, distinct from the first, regarding Saul’s selection as king. The initial version seems to support the monarchy as the best solution to the failures and decline of the judicial system, which had lost its integrity, as illustrated by Samuel (8:5); it was, therefore, an effort to restore social justice. The second tradition adopts a national perspective; Israel faces threats from stronger neighboring peoples with no one to protect it. The monarchy was meant to address this situation by liberating them from these dangers. From the moment of his election, Saul already has a faction of the people supporting him, but he also faces another sector that rejects and distrusts him: “How can he save us?”

Saul, already chosen and anointed, continues his agricultural work, which is typical of judges. When a new judge arose, he did not change his “modus vivendi,” since there were no structures, no city, no palace, and no court surrounding the institution. Saul’s victory over the Ammonites provides the perfect setting for the inauguration of the monarchy and the king’s coronation, with Samuel’s actions paving the way for a new era: the era of the monarchy.

After the initial victory and the solemn inauguration of the kingdom, the author includes a theological recap delivered by a prominent figure. The farewell ceremony features the following elements: the oath of innocence (2-5), the indictment (6-15), theophany confirming it (16-18), the confession of sin (19), and the final exhortation (20-25).

Saul assumes a role that is not his to fill, even though he is king and faces a threat to the people: the religious danger. Because of this, Samuel condemns his actions and announces the rule of another man better suited to the divine will. We could say that the brief exchange between Samuel and Saul acts as the theological justification offered by the Deuteronomist tradition (D) for Saul’s removal by the party led by David.

The chapter ends with a description of the limited resources that Jonathan, Saul’s son, plans to use to face the Philistine threat. The details about the monopoly and iron technology show how the Philistines controlled the region and kept dominance over many small towns. Let us think about our struggling nations, which are similarly vulnerable to foreign technologies and influence. Is this just in God’s eyes?

This chapter honors Jonathan. The Philistines are on a steep hill, making a direct attack difficult. The young prince takes this chance to launch a surprise attack, sparking a major battle and a notable victory for the Israelites. Jonathan openly criticizes his father’s choice, earning the admiration of the people; he is the hero of the day. The story is well-structured. While others tend to reveal details as the story goes on, this one lays out the key facts early.

In this chapter, Samuel presents himself with prophetic authority, establishing the chapter’s parameters: the anointed one must follow God’s plans, not his own. It is easy to understand, then, Samuel’s verdict to Saul: “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord and he has rejected you” (26). However, the reason behind such a harsh judgment is unclear. Is it fair to wipe out an entire people, including women and children, for a crime committed centuries ago? In light of Christ’s teachings, Samuel’s command confuses and disgusts us. What can we say? The best we can do is this: the Lord chooses a people, with their customs and institutions, to lead them to higher levels of humanity gradually. The Lord of life, who does not simply abolish infant mortality or stop fatal accidents and natural disasters, temporarily accepts a warrior institution that causes the deaths of innocents. The sacred author turns this general acceptance into a specific, formal command through the story. Additionally, the fact that Saul did not eliminate the Amalekites is evident from their later presence: 27:8; 30:2 (cf. 1 Chr 4:43); although Amalek does disappear as an independent people. But let’s not hide our surprise or silence our protests.

The direction that the monarchical institution was destined to take in Israel is subtly foreshadowed in 13:14 and 15:28; thus, this account serves to confirm that announcement. The Lord has specifically chosen David. Through the literary device of anticipation, the anointing, which likely legitimizes a process already in motion, occurs during David’s early youth or adolescence, at the beginning of his story. The Lord takes the initiative; Samuel is the official executor, and the people’s input is disregarded. In revealing the chosen one, the author employs the well-known motif of the younger brother being placed before his siblings, a common theme in Hebrew folklore that aims to demonstrate that God does not think like humans because He does not focus on appearances.

The stories of the two main characters in these chapters, David and Saul, begin to connect. While it is said of David that after his anointing, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and stayed with him from then onward (13), the opposite happened with Saul: an evil spirit tormented him, and only music could comfort him. David was brought in for this purpose, as he was the only one who could soothe the king with his harp. According to the story, Saul doesn’t realize that Samuel has already anointed David as the new king of Israel.

The story of David and Goliath presents some challenges. First, the account overlooks everything that came before; Saul is not yet acquainted with David. Second, according to 2 Samuel 21:19, it is Elhanan of Bethlehem, one of David’s warriors, who kills the Philistine Goliath of Gath. Some might see this as a victory for David over a Philistine soldier whom tradition has confused with someone else. 
The victory over Goliath is referenced in 19:5; 21:10; 22:10.13. Despite the difficulties, the author of the book was right to keep this chapter: it is a classic story where the contrast between the warrior and the shepherd is prominent. The pastoral image of David serves as the central theme of the episode. The shepherd motif has two parts: on one side, the focus on his small stature and youth (14:28; 33:43.55.56); on the other, divine support. Additionally, this motif carries deep symbolic meaning. The shepherd cares for his sheep and protects them from wild animals; similarly, the king should care for his people and defend them from enemies—king/shepherd, people/flock, enemy/wild animals. Saul fails to do his duty, but David succeeds, showing his ability to lead. The shepherd looks after the people and defends them from their enemies.