Outline of Chapter 9:

       vv.    1–5        Saul and his Servant Search for Two Donkeys

       vv.    6–10      Saul and his Servant Decide to Visit the Man of God in a Nearby City

       vv.   11–14      Saul and his Servant Enter the City

       vv.   15–16      God Previously Told Samuel of Saul’s Coming

       vv.   17–21      Saul and Samuel Meet

       vv.   22–24      Saul is the Foreknown Guest of Honor at the Foreordained Feast

       vv.   25–27      Saul Remains in the City Until the Next Morning

Charts and Maps:

       v.      1           Two Suggested Lines to Saul

       v.      4           Map of Saul’s Journey in Search of the Donkeys

       v.      5           The Possible Meanings of Dâag

       v.      9           What Does this Mean—the Prophet Was Previously Called a Seer?

       v.     10           Revised English Bible Translates 1Sam. 9:7–10

       v.     12           Is This the City of Ramah?

       v.     12           Where is Saul’s Hometown?

       v.     12           Where is the Tomb of Rachel?

       v.     12           Alternate Theories

       v.     12           Problems with Israel’s Worship

       v.     13           Various Translations of 1Sam. 9:13b

       v.     13           A Comparative Translation of 1Sam. 9:8–13

       v.     16           The Time Frame of the Philistine Oppression of Israel

       v.     16           Comparative Chronology Chart

       v.     16           Summary of Chronologies

       v.     22           The Treatment of a Servant in Israeli Society

       v.     27           The Contemporary English Version’s 1Sam. 9:22–25

       v.     27           The Times that God Spoke to Samuel

I ntroduction: Sometimes, in a movie, the camera might follow one person or situation and then follow another, and then these two converge. This is what we will find in this chapter. We will follow Saul as a young man, traveling with a servant, looking for some of his father’s livestock. Then, at about the same time, we have Samuel being told by God that God was going to drop into his lap the first king of Israel (this second scene is much shorter and less detailed). And then Saul walks into town and he searches out Samuel, as the behest of his personal servant.

In this chapter, we will meet Saul, who would be God’s choice for king over Israel, a man who begins as a popular king. However, in his latter years, Saul would become carnal, wilfully disobedient, insanely jealous, and bloodthirsty. However, at this point, these characteristics are not found in Saul. In fact, the Saul of the next few chapters is a man who appears to be honorable and brave and a born leader.

It is in 1Sam. 9, that we meet Saul for the first time. He is a very tall man, probably 6'6" or taller. He is also extremely handsome. He is the kind of a man who appears to be a king—he is tall, strong, handsome (vv. 1–2), charismatic and brave (this will come out in Saul’s battles with the Philistines in subsequent chapters), albeit incredibly shy before crowds (as we will see in chapter 10).

We begin this chapter with the scenario that two donkeys belonging to Saul’s father turn up missing. Given the financial status of the Israelites at that time, this representing a reasonable portion of the Kish family fortune. So Saul was sent with a servant to recover the animals (vv. 3–5). After they had searched for an undetermined period of time (a couple days to a week?), Saul’s servant suggests that they go visit a prophet in a nearby city. This city is unnamed, but we can reasonably assume that it is Ramah (see exegesis for v. 6). Now, although to Saul and his servant, this deviation is a last minute decision, Samuel already knew that they were coming and set up a banquet in honor of Saul, who would be the next king of Israel. These things would fall upon Saul as if he had just walked into the Twilight Zone. He’s out looking around for his father’s donkeys, but ends up going to a city where there is a prophet, and comes to find that the prophet is waiting for him and has set up a dinner in his honor because Saul was to be the next king of Israel. Samuel might just as well of slammed Saul in the head with a 2x4. When Samuel reveals this to Saul, Saul tries to reason with him, saying that he comes from the most insignificant family of the least tribe of Israel (v. 21). Samuel appears to ignore his argument and they go to the banquet where the choicest piece of meat is given to Saul. The key is that Samuel had told his cook to set this piece of meat aside for Saul before Saul had even stepped foot into town (vv. 22–24). This chapter ends with Samuel sending Saul on his way (vv. 26–27), although there is really no reason for a chapter division at this point.

Barnes makes one short comment to introduce this chapter: The absence of all chronology or note of time is remarkable. The book of Samuel is filled with chronological clues, including the location of the Ark and the Tent of God (1Sam. 1:3 4:3–4); references to time (1Sam. 2:19 5:3 6:1 7:2 11:3); references to people’s ages or to their approximate ages (1Sam. 2:22 3:1–2 4:15, 18, 19 7:13, 15 8:2 13:1); etc. I do not recall any specific references to particular dates in this book (compare 1Kings 15:1 or I1Chron. 16:1). However, in 1Sam. 9–10, there are none of these sorts of references to time.

In the introduction, I mentioned how much of the history found in the book of Samuel seems to change point of view, as if there are different authors. For the next two chapters, Saul seems most in view, and there are incidents with him and his servant which are known only to him and his servant. The next several chapters center on Saul, and portions of them are things witnessed only by Saul. If Samuel wrote these chapters, then much of what he wrote came from direct interview or from documents prepared by Saul (i.e., a history of the King of Israel). Now, when I say direct interview, I don't mean like a magazine or television show interviews a celebrity; but this would be information which Samuel gleaned from Saul in the course of a normal conversation, which information he wrote down, recognizing its importance and historicity. In case authorship interests you, recall that we covered this back in the Introduction to the Book of 1Samuel.

Saul and his Servant Search for Two Donkeys

First, let’s see how others have rendered this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he is a man from Benjamin and his name, Kish ben Abiel ben Zeror ben Becorath ben Aphiah [possibly Abiah] a son of a man of a Benjamite, a man of strength.

Septuagint                             And a man of Benjamin, and his name Kis, the son of Abiel, the son of Jared, the son of Machir, the son of Aphec, the son of a Benjamite, a man of might.

Significant differences:          None. Let me explain: Kish = Kis. In the Greek, there is no h in the middle of a word. We do have an h at the beginning of some words, as it is the rough breathing of a vowel. Zeror = Jared. These are transliterations, and sometimes, not as well-done as we would like. In the English, we read Jared. There is no j in the Greek or the Hebrew (you know all of those j saints? Jeremiah, Joseph, John? That is not even a good transliteration because there is no j in either primary original language). In the case of Jared, the Greek is actually Sared (Σαρεδ); which is a reasonable transliteration from the Hebrew. What about the ending, you say? The d (ד) and r (ר) in the Hebrew are very similar and often confounded, which is what happened here.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Kish was a wealthy man who belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. His father was Abiel, his grandfather was Zeror, his great-grandfather was Becorath, and his great-great-grandfather was Aphiah.

TEV                                       There was a wealthy and influential man named Kish, from the tribe of Benjamin; he was the son of Abiel and grandson of Zeror, and belonged to the family of Becorath, a part of the clan of Aphiah.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         There was a man from the tribe of Benjamin whose name was Kish. He was a son of Abiel, grandson of Zeror, and great-grandson of Becorath, whose father was Aphiah, a descendant of Benjamin. Kish was a powerful man.

JPS (Tanakh)                        There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish son of Abiel son of Zeror son of Becorath son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a man of substance.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Now there was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Becorath, the son of Aphiah, the son of a Benjamite, a mighty man of valor.

Young's Literal Translation    And there is a man of Benjamin, and his name is Kish, son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, mighty of valour,...

What is the gist of this verse? The line of Saul is given.

Translation: And [there] was a man from Benjamin... Benjamin which means son of [my] right hand. Benjamin was the last son of Jacob, born of Rachel, the woman whom he loved. She suffered greatly during childbirth and died as a result of it. Prior to her death, she named her son Ben-oni, which means son of my sorrow; Jacob named the boy Benjamin (Gen. 35:18). Benjamin, of course, was one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The man from the tribe of Benjamin will be Saul's father, Kish.

Translation: ...and his name [was] Kish... Or, the complete verse: And so [there] was a man of Benjamin and his name [was] Kish. Saul's line will be given in this verse, and we begin with his father and work backward.

Translation: ...son of Abiel son of Zeror... When then follows is ben Abiel, ben Zeror... Although the Hebrew ben means son, it is not a literal son, but, more properly, ancestor of. Abiel is probably equivalent to Jeiel (1Chron. 8:29 9:35) and he is actually the grandfather of Kish. Zeror is only mentioned here.

The very slight differences between the Greek and Hebrew were discussed earlier where the two translations are placed side-by-side.

Translation: ...son of Becorath son of Aphiah,... When then follows is ...ben Becorath, ben Aphiah... which could also be rendered ...[who was] the son of Becorath [who was] the son of Aphiah... As we have seen many times, the word bên (ן ֵ) [pronounced bane] means son, descendant. Some to have problems with this word and take it far too literally to mean son when it is not meant to be used that way (the CEV and the Message take this word very literally, as can observe: There was a man from the tribe of Benjamin named Kish. He was the son of Abiel, grandson of Zeror, great-grandson of Becorath, great-great-grandson of Aphiah--a Benjaminite of stalwart character—the Message). A Jew today can be rightly called the son of Abraham (or, ben A^bvraham), even though there are an intervening 5000 years between them. On the other hand, this does not mean that bên cannot be taken to mean a literal son of. It would make more sense to find the direct and most recent ancestors here rather than in 1Chron. 8 (which would help account for the lines of Saul being so different).

As a side note, if you ever had the urge to study the first 9 or 10 chapters of Chronicles and you have become confused as to the difference between the ancestral lines found there as opposed to elsewhere in Scripture, a good rule of thumb is: 1Chronicles tends to look at these lines from a distance. Who was the actual father and actual grandfather is often left out, and Chronicles focuses more on the key men found in this or that chronology. When examining a chronology listed in an historical book, where the actual record is close in time to the events, then that writer will pay more attention to the recent line of any given man, and then suddenly jump back in time to which tribe they are from.

A second thing you should grasp about genealogy is, as you move backward in time, your ancestors increase in number. That is, you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, etc. Therefore, at times, one study can follow a line through this particular set of ancestors and another line may follow a different set of ancestors. Both lines could lead back to Benjamin, ultimately (in this case). My point is, there is no contradiction between this line and the line leading to Saul in 1Chron. 8 and 9. This is not to say that there are problems when we compare lines and that these general points do not solve all of the problems; however, it does take care of, say, 80% of them.

By the way, Becorath and Aphiah are only found in this verse.

Translation: ...the son of a man of Jamin [or, a Benjamite], a man of wealth. This last guy, Aphiah, is called a son of a man of Benjamin, which is actually, in the Hebrew, the son of a man in Yamin. Since Saul will later call himself a Benjamite (1Sam. 9:21), it is not clear if this is a reference to Benjamin (in this verse) or whether it refers to Yamin (or Jamin), which would be an intervening person in this line between Aphiah and Benjamin. In any case, Benjamin at the beginning of this verse is not written the same as a son of a man in Yamin at the end of this verse. My thinking is, they are equivalent and that Yamin might reasonably be another name for Benjamin. In any case, with would be awkward to say ben Benjamin, as you would be repeating yourself.

The writer gets a little descriptive, calling someone a man of wealth (or, strength). This gives us: And [there] was a man from Benjamin and his name [was] Kish son of Abiel son of Zeror son of Becorath son of Aphiah, the son of a man of a Yamin [or, a Benjamite], a man of wealth. There are two ways of looking at this last phrase: one way is noted in my looser rendering of this verse: the son of a powerful and wealthy Benjamite. Note how this man is viewed: he is wealthy and powerful, but is unnamed. It’s like being an heir to the Ford or Rockefeller fortunes without knowing the name of the initial wealthy man. The other interpretation, of course, is that Kish is this man of strength or wealth.

I am probably examining this in much too much detail, but let me take this just a little further. If the wealth and power belongs to this unnamed ancestor, then that ancestor cannot be Benjamin, as whatever wealth he may or may not have enjoyed in Egypt (which information is unknown in Scripture), would not be pertinent, as the Jews were put into bondage to Egypt while they lived there. So, no wealth would have been passed down from Benjamin, as such wealth would have been confiscated by the Egyptians. However, I believe the proper interpretation of this verse is: Kish is the wealthy man in view here and that his line is traced back to Benjamin, which is actually mentioned twice in this verse (he is called a man of Benjamin and his line is also traced back to Benjamin). .

In the next verse, we will meet Saul, the son of Kish; but first, we ought to go to 1Chron. 8 and exegete that chapter, which is the line of Benjamin, the tribe from which Saul came and probably the most screwed up line in Scripture.

Apart from Saul, there is very little that we know of his ancestors. The little we know was covered in 1Chron. 8 already. Now, you may be concerned that Saul’s line looks one way in 1Sam. 9 and looks another in 1Chron. 8. This is not anything to be worried about. Everyone has two parents, who came from 4 grandparents, who came from 8 great grandparents, who came from 16 great, great grandparents. So, you can follow someone’s line backwards and list a whole passel of ancestors that someone else might leave out. When investigating my own roots, there were many occasions that I would wonder in what direction should I go. Do I go backwards through the line of this great, great grandparent, or through another? Since Saul is a Benjamite, all his lines will lead back to Benjamin—however, there are a myriad of ways to get there.

And, as mentioned before, a genealogy mentioned in an historical book like Samuel will focus on the most recent ancestors, as the writing of the book is close in time to the events recorded. The book of Chronicles was written long after the fact and based upon a number of written sources rather than upon eyewitness accounts; so we would expect the genealogies there to focus on key people in the genealogy. Let me try this in another way. If I examine my own chronology, I am going to primarily look at my parents and grandparents and perhaps my great grandparents. However, let's say that I become famous and someone 200 years from now studies my line—what is going to come to their mind might be my parents and then some ancestors who stood out for whatever reason.

Let’s first see what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And to him was a son and his name Saul—a young man and good and there [was] no man from sons of Israel good from he. From his shoulder and upward taller from all the people.

Septuagint                             And this man [had] a son, and his name was Saul, of great stature, a goodly man; and there was not among the sons of Israel a goodlier than he, high above all the land from above his shoulders and upward.

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NEB                                       He was a man of substance, and had a son named Saul, a young man in his prime; there was no better man among the Israelites than he. Hew as a head taller than any of his fellows. [v. 1b is included]

NIV                                        He had a son named Saul, an impressive young man without equal among the Israelites—a head taller than any of the others.

TEV                                       He had a son named Saul, a handsome man in the prime of life. Saul was a foot taller than anyone else in Israel and more handsome as well.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         He had a son named Saul, a handsome, young man. No man in Israel was more handsome than Saul. He stood a head taller than everyone else.

JPS (Tanakh)                        He had a son whose name was Saul, an excellent young man; no one among the Israelite was handsomer than he; he was a head taller [lit., taller from his shoulders up] than any of the people.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Amplified Bible                Kish had a son named Saul, a choice young man and handsome; among all the Israelites there was not a man more handsome than he. He was a head taller than any of the people.

NASB                                     And he had a son whose name was Saul, a choice and handsome man, and there was not a more handsome person than he among the sons of Israel; from his shoulders up he was taller than any of the people.

Young's Updated LT              ...and he has a son, and his name is Saul, a choice youth and goodly, and there is not a man among the sons of Israel goodlier than he—from his shoulder and upward, higher than any of the people.

What is the gist of this verse? One of Kish's sons is named Saul, who looked good and was quite tall.

Translation: And he had a son... We begin with a common Hebraism: it literally reads: And to him [there] was..., which can be reasonably rendered and he had... Then we have the word for son.

Translation: ...and his name [was] Saul,... The proper noun Saul is, in the Hebrew, Shâûwl (לאָש) [pronounced shaw-OOL], and his name means asked for. This has caused some to suppose that Saul was either the firstborn or an only child. That is, his parents prayed for a son and they got Saul. This is a reasonable supposition, as the other word that shâûwl is similar to means hades. Two parents are more likely to name their son [the one] asked for rather than hades. And to him was a son and his name, Saul...

Now, what has occurred here is unusual. If you are on the one year, read through your Bible program, then you breezed right through vv. 1–2a without giving them a second thought. Out of nowhere, we begin talking about this guy Saul and we are given his pedigree. Most of the time, the average Charlie Brown in the Bible is simply mentioned, and sometimes not even by name (e.g., the man of God in 1Sam. 2:27–36). Most often, just their first name is given (e.g., Hannah from 1Sam. 1–2) and, occasionally, their first name and their father’s name is given, often to distinguish them from anyone else with the same name (e.g., Eleazar ben Abinadab in 1Sam. 7:1). But here, in this passage, before we know anything about Saul, we know his family tree. Whenever this occurs, we are speaking of a very important person in the plan of God (for instance, Samuel’s family background is given in 1Sam. 1:1). This way, as you read, you don’t see that this guy Saul is chosen to be king over Israel and you stop and remark, “Now, just who the hell is this Saul character? Where did he come from?” That information is given to us right up front.

Translation:...[who was] a pleasant [or, handsome] and choice young man... The noun here is bâchûr (רח ָ) [pronounced baw-KOOR], which means young man, choice young man, a man in the prime of his life, the flower of youth, the quintessence of adult life. This gives us: ...a [choice] young man and a pleasant [young man]... He was the right age to be king and the people, as a whole, would accept him. There would be some detractors, certainly (see 1Sam. 10:27), but as a whole, Israel will see Saul as the kingly sort, someone to whom they would be willing to subject themselves.

I mentioned age, so we should discuss that. In 1Sam. 13:1, in the NASB and in the KJV, Saul is said to be 40 years old (which is not found in the Hebrew or in the Greek). In late Septuagint manuscripts, Saul is said to be 30. Here, he is said to be a man in the prime of his life. On the one hand, we would reasonably assume that he is around 40 because at the beginning of his reign, Jonathan, his son, is functioning as a military commander (his position is implied by 1Sam. 13:3). Saul can’t be 30 years old, because that would make Jonathan about 14 at the oldest. If Saul is 40, then Jonathan would be about 20—a little young to command a crack military force, unless, of course, you are the king’s son. This also gives us the idea that, relative to the position of king of Israel, Saul was a young man in the prime of his life. Relative to a different situation, Saul may not be so referred to. However, even as a king, no one would consider 40 to be a yong man. Even 35; therefore, it would be more reasonable for Saul to be 25–30, which would make him a young man. That has an impact on Samuel’s prophecy concerning Gilgal and upon the time and sequence of the events found in 1Sam. 13–14. We will discuss this in greater detail when we get to 1Sam. 13:2. By the way, the Vulgate sidesteps this entire discussion by calling Saul a chosen one (electus), which is not exactly the meaning of the Hebrew adjective.

Let me see if I can explain this a little better: Saul is not going to be king tomorrow. Therefore, he can be 25–35, become king after several years pass (even as many as 10), and that would allow for his son to be a top military commander.

Translation: ...and there [was] no man from the sons of Israel [who were] more pleasant [or, handsome] than he. Or, There [was] no man from the sons of Israel better than he. We already know that it is God’s preference that the people of Israel not have a king. Samuel has strongly expressed this preference himself. However, God has bowed to the wishes of His people and He has agreed to give Israel a king. Now, we might expect God to choose a vicious and cruel tyrant to illustrate just how bad of a choice Israel has made. God does not do that. God chooses a man who is pleasing both me man and to God—in fact, God chooses a man who is more pleasing or more agreeable to the general public than anyone else in Israel. Samuel will confirm this in 1Sam. 10:24: “Do you see him whom Jehovah has chosen? Surely there is no one like him among all the people.” God will then choose even a better king to follow him (King David) and then choose a man of great wisdom to follow King David.

The people want a king; however, this does not mean that they will accept just anyone as their king. God is careful to choose someone that the people will see as a king. The second king of Israel will be a much more subtle choice. Even David's own father will not see David as kingly material.

Translation: From his shoulder and up, [he was] taller than all the people. Leadership is an interesting thing. There are times in history where height plays a key role, and a leader is someone whom the people literally look up to. This seems to indicate that Saul was the tallest man in Israel by a head. 1Sam. 10:23b confirms this: When he stood up among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.

McGee comments on his appearance: This boy Saul was handsome. Physically he looked like a king but he was an actor that played a part. He was not a king at heart. The people, however, were choosing their king by his outward appearance and not according to his character. It is this “outward appearance” that places our nation in such a dangerous position today. The most dangerous enemy we have is the television. The man that will ultimately control this country is the man who has a good TV appearance. Why? Because we choose men by the way they look and the way they talk rather than by their character. If only we had an X-ray—instead of the TV—that would reveal the true character of a man! This children of Israel wanted a king and they liked Saul. He was handsome. He was tall. He was fine looking. There wasn’t a more kingly looking man in the nation. He could have been both a TV and a movie star. He looked the part and could play the part; the trouble was he was not a king at heart.

Let’s see how others handled the translation:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so are lost the donkeys to Kish, a father of Saul, and so said Kish unto Saul his son, “Take please with you one of from the young men and arise, go, look for the donkeys.”

Septuagint                             And the asses of Kis the father of Saul were lost; and Kis said to Saul his son, “Take with you one of the young men and arise and go and seek the asses.”

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         Some of Kish's donkeys got lost. Kish said to his son, "Saul, take one of the servants with you and go look for the donkeys."

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        Once the asses of Saul’s father Kish went astray, and Kish said to his son Saul, “Take along one of the servants and go out and look for the asses.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Now the donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father, were lost. So Kish said to his son Saul, “Take now with you one of the servants, and arise, go search for the donkeys.”

Young's Updated LT              And the asses of Kish, father of Saul, are lost, and Kish says unto Saul his son, ‘Take, I pray you, with you, one of the young men, and rise, go, seek the asses.’

What is the gist of this verse? Kish has some donkeys which run off, or get lost somehow, and he asks his son Saul to take a personal servant and to go find them.

Translation: Now the donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father, became lost,... We are not told how many donkeys are lost nor do we know the circumstances of how they are lost. My guess is, this is a herd of donkeys that somehow have wandered off. However, we know that God has caused them to wander off, setting this act in motion a billion years previous.

Saul and David are often contrasted, if not directly, then indirectly. Here, Saul is associated with a herd of asses that don't belong to him, whereas David will first be known as a shepherd of sheep. Even from the first impression, we can see the parallels between David and our Lord.

Translation: ...so Kish said to his son, Saul, “Please take with you one of the servants... Kish was a relative wealthy man who had both servants and donkeys. However, he was not necessarily rich beyond belief. I recall seeing some statistics the other day listing some of the differences between 1900 and 2000, and one of the most interesting stats was that 23% of the households in 1900 had a servant. Now, I know that just in 100 years the amount of personal wealth has grown immensely and ownership of little gadgets as well; however, one area in which we have fallen far behind our great great grandparents is that of servant ownership. My point being is that one did not have to be incredibly wealthy in Israel to own slaves or servants. Even at this point in time, I know of other countries where many average families have a servant, a cook and/or a maid.

One of the social issues in this country is, no matter how far in debt a person gets, even if they walk away from it, the consequences are generally limited. In fact, people can file bankruptcy and still hold on to their homes and certain other possessions, regardless of the value of these things. Their punishment is limited. There is no jail for them and they can walk away from debt without having to ever pay it off. If there was some sort of enforced servitude here, the number of people who are careless with their debt would likely decrease substantially. One of the other social issues in this country is minimum wage; people must receive a minimum amount of money. Another issue restricted legal movement into this country by foreigners. If these issues were dealt with differently in this country, then we would have a lot more servants in this country—a position which is not demeaning or wrong in any sense. If debtors were given the choice between working off their debts in servitude or being cast into prison, I think the amount of indebtedness in this country would be reduced, as well as frivolous spending as the result of the lusts of the old sin nature. If minimum wage laws were loosened with regards to personal servants and if people from other countries were allowed to move here to the US to act as servants, I believe we would see a significant rise in this profession as well.

Law and societal norms ideally are set up to protect our freedoms and to pose certain restrictions on the old sin nature. Here, a young person or a young couple can literally run up a mountain-load of debt in a very short amount of time—buy almost anything that their eyes desire—and then they can walk away from this with relatively few restrictions placed upon them (apart from having their credit hurt). Our society, at this point in time, sees that as a lesser evil than a debtor's prison or enforced (but reasonable) servitude.

Translation: ...and arise [and] go [and] look for the donkeys.” We have an unusual construction here (unusual for English, anyway), which is found primarily with imperative verbs in the Hebrew. We would expect a series of verbs punctuated with conjunctions; however, we have a series of imperative verbs without being interspersed conjunctions of any sort, which is common in the Hebrew. Literally, this reads: “...and then get up, go, seek out the donkeys.” This lack of wâw conjunction’s is called an asyndeton [pronounced a-SYN-de-ton], and it moves the action along. Bullinger: We are not detained over the separate statements, and asked to consider each in detail, but we are hurried on over the various matters that are mentioned, as though they were of no account, in comparison with the great climax to which they lead u, and which alone we are thus asked by this figure to emphasize. Finding the donkeys is of the utmost importance and this seems to indicate less of leading up to something and more of a demand for a quick response. Kish does not expect his son to say, “Just as soon as Leave It To Beaver is over. However, on the other hand, this is the usual way for imperatives to be strung together in the Hebrew. It is more likely to be found in this format than with conjunctions. However, the force of this construction can still be understood in the same way: Kish expects his son to get after these donkeys right now or a minute ago.

The NIV Study Bible suggests that there is an analogy here. Saul is first introduced as a man sent out to find some donkeys which had strayed from the fold—symbolizing Israel in their rebelliousness against God in asking for a king. They add that David is himself introduced as a shepherd caring for his father’s flock and then later pictured as the shepherd over the Lord’s flock (2Sam. 5:2 7:7–8 Psalm 78:71–72). I don’t really buy the former, as Saul never really puts Israel on the right track. He is a good leader, particularly at first, but as for accomplishments, they were minimal. However, considering that he never does find the donkeys himself, perhaps the analogy is apt.

McGee points out the better analogy: I know that the Lord has a sense of humor. You just cannot miss it because it is in too many places in the Word of God. Saul is out looking for the asses of his father, and the asses of Israel are looking for a king. They are bound to get together, friend, and they do. The Lord must smile when a thing like this takes place. What a commentary on the human race! 

Let’s see what others have done first:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he passed through in a hill country of Ephraim and so he passed through in a land of Shalishah and he did not find [them]. And so they passed through in a land of Shaalim and nothing. And so they passed through in a land of Benjamin and they could not find [them].

Septuagint                             And they went through mount Ephraim, and they went through the land of Selcha, and they found them not; and they passed through the land of Segalim, and they were not there; and they passed through the land of Jamin, and found them not.

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         Saul took one of the servants and went to find the donkeys. They went into the hill country of Ephraim around Shalisha, but didn't find them. Then they went over to Shaalim--no luck. Then to Jabin, and still nothing.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        He passed into the hill country of Ephraim. He crossed the district of Shalishah, but they did not find them. They passed through the district of Shaalim, but they were not there. They traversed the [entire] territory of Benjamin, and still they did not find them.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And he passed through the hill country of Ephraim and passed through the land of Shalishah, but they did not find them. Then they passed through the land of Shaalim, but they were not there. Then he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they did not find them.

Young's Updated LT              And he passes over through the hill-country of Ephraim, and passes over through the land of Shalisha, and they have not found; and they pass over through the land of Shaalim, and they are not; and he passes over through the land of Benjamin, and they have not found.

What is the gist of this verse? The movement of Saul and his servant are given as they search for the donkeys of Kish.

Translation: So he passed through the hill-country of Ephraim... Ephraim is 3–4 times larger than Benjamin and is directly north of the territory of Benjamin. Even though we are not told here where the Kish clan lives, we may assume that they live near the northern border of Benjamin, because Saul looks in both Ephraim and Benjamin. Back in 1Chron. 8, we found that Saul’s ancestors lived in Gibeon, which is near the northern border of Benjamin.

One of the obvious differences between the Greek and the Hebrew is that the Greek consistently uses the masculine plural throughout this verse and the Hebrew uses mostly the masculine singular, but has one verb in the masculine plural. So, in the Hebrew, we are primarily tracking Saul's movements and actions; and in the Greek, we are tracking the movements of Saul and his servant. So, even though the number is different, the meaning is essentially the same.

In this portion of v. 4, we have the masculine singular construct of har (ר ַה) [pronounced har], which means hill, mountain, hill-country. It is generally used in conjunction with a specific proper noun and in such a case refers to a particular mountain (e.g., Mount Hermon). However, by itself, it can refer to a mountain range or a mountainous area; or, as most translators render this, as hill country. This explains this being rendered both mount Ephraim and the hill country of Ephraim. My thinking is, Saul and his servant are searching through some of the hill country in Ephraim. From his home, he would be traveling in an east or northeast direction to reach the hill country of Ephraim, which continues down into Benjamin.

Translation: ...and then he passed through the land of Shalishah... The land of Shalishah is not mentioned enough in Scripture to get a fix on where it is (it is only found here and it may be synonymous with Baal-shalisha found in I1Kings 4:42). Even though we surely don’t know where this place is, Eusebius and Jerome place it north of Lydda (Lod). Since Lydda is in Benjamin, north of Benjamin would either take it outside of Benjamin into Ephraim or we would be in northern Benjamin, which is certainly logical. In any case, this is in full agreement with Saul’s search (and quite possibly the reason for their choice). Barnes tells us that Shalisha was somewhere near Gilgal and writes It is thought to derive its name from three (Shalosh) wadys which unite in the wady of Karawa.

Translation: ...and they did not find [them]. Altogether, this gives us: So he passed through the hill-country of Ephraim and then he passed through the land of Shalishah and they did not find [them]. The Greek has masculine plural’s throughout this verse: So they passed through the hill-country of Ephraim and then they passed through the land of Shalishah and they did not find [them]. With all of Saul's searching, they have come up empty.

Translation: Then they passed through the land of Shaalim and [they found] nothing. Shaalim is mentioned only here and it is close in form to Shaalbim, which is in Dan, which is itself probably identical to Shaalabbin (Joshua 19:42 Judges 1:35). There is not enough information for us to state this with any certainty, nor does it help us much even if they are all equivalent. Furthermore, this would indicate a sudden westward movement over quite a distance, which does not seem logical. We would expect, if these places are named, that we would be able to see a reasonable movement from one place to the next, without a great deal of intervening territory. Furthermore, this would have been a long ways for the donkeys to go.

Because Shaalim means foxes and Shual means fox, some make these two areas equivalent. The Macmillan Bible Atlas places Shual in southern Ephraim, still in the hill country, south of Ophrah and north of Rimmon (and further north of Mishmash). Barnes suggests that this is about 9 miles north of Gibeah, and all of this is in full agreement with 1Sam. 13:17 where will have a military maneuver discussed. This theory of Shaalim's location makes much more sense.

This map was scanned from The MacMillan Bible Atlas; 3^rd Edition; Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai; MacMillan; ©1993 by Carta; p. 70.

Translation: Then he passed through the land of Benjamin [lit., Yamin] but they did not find [them]. We have the 3^rd person masculine singular (again, the Septuagint and Vulgate have a masculine plural here), Qal imperfect of to pass through followed by [the] land of Benjamin followed by and did not find [them], giving us: Then they passed through the land of Benjamin but they did not find [them]. Saul is taking in quite a large area in his search. He has traveled through parts of Ephraim, Benjamin and possibly Dan, and has not located these wayward beasts.

The Macmillan Bible Atlas puts the time of this search at 1035 b.c. and has the movement of Saul and his servant as somewhat of a circle (which we would expect—you first go to where you expect the donkeys to be, and then move in an ever-widening circle around that place). This allows us to roughly locate some of the cities or areas, whose location would be otherwise unknown to us. The map I have scanned in here may or may not be an accurate representation of Saul's movement, but it is a reasonable map and completely in synch with the context.

First, what other have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       They [even] they came into a land of Zuph and Saul said to his young man who [was] with him, “Come and let us return lest cease my father from the donkeys and he has been anxious [concerned or fearful] for us.”

Septuagint                             And when they come to Siph, then Saul said to his young man that was with him, “Come and let us return, lest my father leave the asses, and take care for us.”

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         When they got to Zuph, Saul said to the young man with him, "Enough of this. Let's go back. Soon my father is going to forget about the donkeys and start worrying about us."

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         When they came to the territory of Zuph, Saul told his servant who was with him, “Let’s go back, or my father will stop worrying about the donkeys and worry about us [instead].”

JPS (Tanakh)                        When they reached the district of Zuph, Saul said to the servant who was with him, “Let us turn back, or my father will stop worrying about the asses and begin to worry about us.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     When they came to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant who was with him, “Come, and let us return, lest my father cease to be concerned about the donkeys and become anxious for us.”

Young's Updated LT              They have come in unto the land of Zuph, and Saul has said to his young man who is with him, ‘Come, and we turn back, lest my father leave off from the asses, and has been sorrowful for us.’

What is the gist of this verse? Saul suggests to his servant that they return home, before his father begins to stop looking for the donkeys and begin looking for them.

Translation: [When] they came into the land of Zuph,... We do not begin with a wâw consecutive or even a wâw conjunction, which is a rarity in Hebrew prose. The land of Zuph probably refers to the area around Ramah (also known as Ramathaim). The short version is that this area originally belonged to Benjamin and was taken in by Ephraim. They [even] they had come into the land of Zuph...

As we have seen from the previous map, Zuph is the area which includes Mizpeh and Ramah and apparently an area settled by the family of Samuel, which name came from one of his ancestors (we discussed this way back in 1Sam. 1:1).

Translation: ...Saul said to his servant who [was] with him,... Or, ...and Saul said to his boy who [was] with him... We have a completely negative connotation of the idea of a personal servant. However, most of us view the job of a personal assistant as being a reasonable job. There is not really a lot of difference here. This is a young man who was either purchased as a slave or put himself into servitude to Saul's family, and he and Saul apparently got along quite well. Although he probably belonged to Saul's family, he would be considered Saul's personal assistant nowadays.

Periodically, I like to stop and ask myself just exactly who is recording this information? Saul first comes to mind, as he is essentially the subject of this material. However, the most reasonable guess is Samuel, whose life will cross paths with Samuel’s in the very near future. What occurred on this trip with Saul would have been told to Samuel so that he would be able to record it several years later.

Translation:...“Come and let us return... Saul is not asking permission, per se, from his personal servant. However, it will be clear with what follows that his personal servant has some say in this matter. We have been given a false view of slavery with regards to its positive aspects and all most people know are the horrors of it (which horrors certainly existed, but not universally). In fact, with regards to our own country, it is said that the Blacks enjoyed a better life in the south as slaves than they did as freemen in the north.

Translation: ...so that my father does not cease [being anxious] about the donkeys and become anxious concerning us.” The final verb in this portion of v. 5 is 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect of dâag (ג-אָ) [pronounced daw-AHG], which means to be anxious, to be concerned, to fear. Dâag only occurs 7 times in Scripture, so we should be able to get a better fix on it.

This gives us: “Come and let us return lest my father cease [being anxious] from the asses and has become anxious [or, fearful] about us.” I believe that it is from this passage that we get the saying, he can’t find his own ass with both hands and a map. After 3 days of searching, it occurs to Saul that his father might become more worried about his whereabouts than the missing donkeys.

Saul and His Servant Decide to Visit the Man of God in a Nearby City

First, the other translations:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so he said to him, “Behold, please, a man of God in the city the this and the man is being honored; all which he says, a coming, he comes. Now, let us go there; perhaps he will declare to us the journey which we have gone upon her.”

Septuagint                             And the young man said to him “Behold now, there is a man of God in this city, and the man is of high repute; all that he speaks will surely come to pass; now then, let us go, that he may tell us our way on which we have set out.”

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       "Wait!" the servant answered. "There's a man of God who lives in a town near here. He's amazing! Everything he says comes true. Let's talk to him. Maybe he can tell us where to look."

The Message                         He replied, "Not so fast. There's a holy man in this town. He carries a lot of weight around here. What he says is always right on the mark. Maybe he can tell us where to go."

TEV                                       The servant answered, “Wait! In this town there is a holy man who is highly respected because everything he says comes true. Let’s go to him, and maybe he can tell us where we can find the donkeys.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        But he replied, “There is a man of God in that town, and the man is highly esteemed; everything that he says comes true. Let us go there; perhaps he will tell us about the errand on which we set out.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And he said to him, “Behold now, there is a man of God in this city, and the man is held in honor; all that he says surely comes true. Now let us go there, perhaps he can tells us about our journey on which we have set out.”

Young's Updated LT              And he says to him, ‘Lo, I pray you, a man of God is in this city, and the man is honoured; all that he speaks does certainly come; now, we will go there, it may be he does declare to us our way on which we have gone.’

What is the gist of this verse? Saul's servant suggests that they go see this man of God (Samuel) who is nearby and that they could ask him about their journey.

Like the rest of this chapter, this verse is moderately lengthy, but it is easy to figure out.

Translation: Then he [the servant] said to him, “Listen, if you would:... See, this servant is not afraid to speak up; he is not afraid to express an opinion. Even though we have a false concept of the master-slave relationship, this is not the relationship which we find here. Even though he is employed by Saul's family, he is a thinking human being with a place in that family as such. Saul is going to take into consideration what this man says. Saul is not going to say, "Dude, you're just a servant. Shut up and carry the pack and let's go back like I already said."

I may hire someone to do a particular job for me—say a remodeling job. This person works for me and I pay him. I may have an idea as to what I want done; however, if I ignore his suggestions and input, then I am the one who is being stupid.

Application: There are people in authority in businesses, in schools, in organizations and in government. It is not their job to simply give orders from the top down and watch the ants underneath them scramble to execute their mandates. If you are a person in authority and this is your idea of exercising your authority, you are an idiot. Now, of course there are times to be autocratic—when authority must be exerted and must be followed. However, if this is the only style that you know as a person in authority, then you are too stupid to be in authority—you do not belong there. A person in authority must be able to listen to the opinions of those below him (or her). Now, I don't mean that you gather everyone together, ask for their input, and then just go ahead and do what you wanted to do in the first place. I am not talking about manipulation, I am talking about true leadership. Saul and his servant were master and slave. At this point in Saul's life, he is able to listen to the opinion of one who below him or under his authority. As Saul gets older, he becomes much less open to the opinions of others, much to his detriment.

Translation:...[there is] a man of God in this city... This is followed by a man of God in this city. Moses is given the title man of God in Deut. 33:1 and Elisha in I1Kings 5:8. This might give you an idea as to how God's will functions. Saul took one of the servants with him and went searching for a herd of donkeys which had apparently wandered off. There is no reason to think that this donkey exit is supernatural. Supernatural is the easy way for God to do something. What is more impressive is, from the beginning of the world, God set things in motion so that somehow, for whatever reason, these donkeys would wander off. Then, God pairs Saul with this particular servant. Although we do not know anything about this servant, we might speculate that he does not get out of the Kish household very much—that his freedom is restricted to some degree—and that, he now finds himself right outside the city of Samuel. This servant is motivated to meet Samuel, something he is apparently unable to do. I imagine that he was unable to attend whatever feasts were observed at this time (as we discussed in 1Sam. 1, we don't know if Israel was observing the feasts as prescribed in Scripture). In any case, this servant is strongly motivated to meet Samuel, indicating positive volition toward God; and Saul will assent to his wishes (Saul does not appear to have the same enthusiasm as his servant). There is nothing in any of this which requires a miraculous event; God is able, from the foundation of the world, to set things in motion so that Saul is brought to Samuel, without several miraculous events occurring and without a bending of Saul's volition.

Application: Although there are certain miracles in Scripture (although, I suspect far fewer than you suppose), they are not an everyday event. If you go to a church or follow some ministry where miracles are emphasized (or anything which is supernatural), then you are in the wrong place. I don't care how much you adore the leader, I don't care how sweet and loving and kind that he is, or how many tremendous works that he does for God (which I suspect are far fewer than you realize), any emphasis upon the supernatural does not line up with Scripture. Miracles, or things which are spectacular and unusual events, occurred at specific times in history for specific reasons. In Egypt, the Jews lived in slavery for 400 years without observing any miracles. When they were led out of Egypt, they observed some very unusual events done by God at the hand of Moses (not all of which were actually miracles). These events were a necessary part of the exodus; and, there were but a handful of them over a period of 40 years. So, even during a time which we see as miraculous, the actual number of miracles averaged out to be less than one every two years. Furthermore, not all of these extraordinary events were miracles (i.e., violations of what we see as natural or scientific law).

Application: At first, prior to salvation, all you need is positive volition. That will get you to God. You do not have to go on some kind of retreat or on some desert search for God. These two men are looking for a herd of donkeys, not for some kind of enlightenment. However, it is in God's plan for them to come face to face with Samuel. I am making the assumption that both Saul and his servant have differing amounts of positive volition at this point—however, both have positive volition. The servant clearly wants to speak to this man of God; and Saul will agree to that.

Translation: ...and the man is honored [or, respected]... Samuel is honored in Israel. This means that he is seen as a man of God—he is seen as one who knows God and knows God's will and is in charge of spiritual things in Israel. Furthermore, as we have already seen, Samuel was a judge and held court in a few cities (1Sam. 7:16). For a judge to have any effect, both he and his rulings must be respected, which appears to be the meaning of kâbêd here (to some extent, anyway). The very fact that Samuel is seen as a man of God indicates that he is honored and respected for that fact. This does not mean grace is not an issue—all that Samuel is, is because of grace.

Translation: ...—all that he says comes to pass. We have the same verb twice in this phrase: we have the Qal infinitive absolute followed by the 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of the verb bôw (א) [pronounced boh], which means to come in, to come, to go in, to go, to enter. Literally, this means a coming he will come, which obviously doesn’t make a lot of sense. The masculine singular refers back to all and the idea is, all that he says, it comes to pass. This gives us: Then he said to him, “Listen, please—[there is] a man of God in this city and the man is honored; all that he says comes to pass.”

It is curious that Saul’s servant knows about the man of God, but that Saul does not. It is indicative of his spiritual state. Gordon comments: Apparently as ignorant of the existence of the holy man as he is of his own high destiny, the young Saul is, nevertheless, led unerringly on to his meeting with Samuel by an unseen divine hand. The inconvenience of the lost asses, like all the fortuitous conjunctions of verses 3–14, turns out to e serving a higher purpose. It is a small matter that the Old Testament lacks a word for ‘providence’ when it can subscribe so heartily to the concept in a passage like the present one.

Gnana Robinson tries to make something out of Saul not knowing who Samuel is, even though Samuel was certainly well-known throughout all of Israel. In all actuality, there is nothing here which indicates that Saul is completely ignorant of who Samuel is. It is possible that he did not know where Samuel’s hometown was; it is possible that he did not realize that they were so close to Samuel’s city; and, of course, it is possible that Saul did not know of Samuel. You would be amazed if you walked down any street in the United States and asked various people who the Vice President is; or, better yet, who the Secretary of State is. Knowing their hometown might be a bit of knowledge that less than 5% of our population might know. What Saul is aware of (as we will ascertain at the end of this chapter) is that there has been a lot of talk in Israel about appointing a king over Israel. However, if Saul has not had an occasion to go before Samuel as a judge; if Saul has given little thought to God, God’s servants and the office of prophet; then Saul is probably ignorant about most things connected to Samuel and his person. Certainly the implication is that his servant knows more about the man of God than does Saul. This should not cause us a problem either.

In the days of slavery in these United States, the heathen Africans were introduced to Jesus Christ as their Savior. A huge number believed in Him and, within 100 years or so, the percentage of Blacks who were believers in the United States was possibly greater than the percentage of Caucasians who were believers. It is also just as reasonable for the average African-American to develop a greater appreciation for and knowledge of the doctrines of Christianity than the average Caucasian. My point being, there is no problem with the servant of Saul being more spiritually aware than Saul. Saul was apparently not even a believer at this point in time (see 1Sam. 10:10).

We have already been told that Samuel grew and Jehovah was with him and He let none of his words fail (1Sam. 3:19). That Saul’s servant says this, confirming 1Sam. 3:19, and given the fact that we have actually seen very little of what Samuel had to say (one of the few exceptions was his opinion of Israel’s desire for a king); this would indicate that Samuel had a lot to say and what he said was accurate. When he spoke of things which would come to pass (which he will do with Saul in what appears to be a natural progression of things), they came to pass. This would lead me to conclude that there was a lot which Samuel said which was not recorded. However, given what Samuel was to predict (i.e., what Saul could expect when he left Samuel—1Sam. 10:2–6), we may assume that much of what he said was very specific and did not have a wide enough application for the Holy Spirit to record those things in Scripture.

I guess this strikes me as a rather trivial matter to go see a man of God about—a few donkeys. However, Saul is not there for himself, but he is doing this for his father. Therefore, it is not trivial for that reason.

The city here is not named. We do not know if it was Samuel’s hometown of Ramah or whether we are speaking of one of the cities on his judgship route (Bethel, Gilgal or Mizpah) or whether this was a special occasion where Samuel was in a Levite city (Shiloh would be unlikely, as it had probably been razed by this time). We do know from the previous verse that we are in the Land of Zuph, and the servant knew that Samuel the prophet was in this nearby city. Samuel’s father was from Ramathaim-zophim in the hill country of Ephraim and he was a descendant of Zuph (1Sam. 1:1). It appears that the short name for this city was Ramah (1Sam. 1:19) and that Samuel lived in Ramah and built an altar to God in Ramah (1Sam. 7:17). Therefore, it would be most reasonable that the Land of Zuph received its name from the blood ancestor of Samuel and that the city that we are speaking of is Samuel’s birthplace of Ramah. The fact that the servant of Saul’s knew this would indicate that we are not necessarily speaking of a special occasion in some odd city but that this is Samuel’s customary home when he was not acting as a circuit judge.

Application: There is also a hidden lesson here. Samuel is God’s man and, for all intents and purposes, he is in semi-retirement. His sons function as judges on his behalf and Samuel is considered old (1Sam. 8:2–5). Although I suspect that he is not completely retired and that he continues to do what God has for him, he does less than what he would have done 20 years ago. Nevertheless, God had a plan for Samuel and that plan continued. For the next 20 years, Samuel will be among the three most important people to the nation Israel—there will be Saul, David and Samuel and God will continue use Samuel for the entirety of his life and, even after he has died, God will use Samuel. The point is that God will use any of us if we have doctrine and positive volition. Our lives continue with meaning long after our retirement. Your age does not decrease your service to God. There does not appear to be a retirement age for that.

Application: Now, I am not saying here that if you are a pastor, you should stand in the pulpit until you drop dead. We have different ministries and different functions at different ages. If you have growing in grace and in the knowledge of God's Word, then you are going to be flexible and you are not going to be confused by God's change of plans for you as you get older. It is better to understand this as, when you leave your pulpit, your ministry has not expired. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that your ministry must remain a ministry of communication. J. Vermon McGee went from the pulpit to communicating the Word of God to millions of people on the radio (which ministry continued long past his death). Another pastor might find himself go from teaching the Word of God to a positive congregation to a ministry of prayer. Samuel is in semi-retirement at this point, but God still has a plan for his life and Samuel will continue to play a major part in the history of Israel.

Translation: Therefore, let us go there... I want you to recognize the human dynamic here. This servant generally does not leave the Kish compound. Now he is traveling all over Israel. He may or may not have a chance like this again. Therefore, this is an opportunity to see the sights and what more interesting thing to see than a man of God who speaks and whatever he says happens? Obviously, this is strong positive volition on his part.

Translation: ...and perhaps he will make clear to us the [reason for] the journey on which we have gone.” Did you notice what a total mess some of the loose translations made of this verse. They are still talking about the damn donkeys! This trip was not about donkeys! Sure, Saul thought that his father sent him out to find this herd of donkeys; but that is not why God has sent Saul out. There is a purpose for Saul and his servant to be where they are at this point in time, and the servant recognizes that fact. He says, “Perhaps he can declare to us our journey that we have gone upon.” Actually, it ends ...have gone upon her (referring back to the journey), but that makes less sense in the English.

Now, the idea is not to explain to Saul and his young man about where physically they had gone and what they could have done, but I think what is more implied here is why did we go on this journey? There must be more to it than simply looking for a couple of donkeys. I mean, obviously, it was not to find the donkeys, because they hadn’t.

Application: It is difficult to know when positive volition will come upon you. It seems to come during this or that point in one's life. When you are interested in God and in His Word, then you will find yourself at the right place at the right time. This is where Saul and his servant are—they have a varying interest in God, and here they find themselves, right outside the city of Samuel.

Let’s see how others dealt with this:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so said Saul to his young man, “And [if] we go and what will we bring to the man? For the bread is exhausted from our receptacles and a journey-gift [there is] not to bring to a man of the God. What [is there] from us?”

Septuagint                             And Saul said to his young man that was with him, “Lo, then, we will go; but what shall be bring the man of God? For the loaves are spent out of our vessels and we have nothing more with us that belongs to us to bring to the man of God.”

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         Saul said, "If we go, what do we have to give him? There's no more bread in our sacks. We've nothing to bring as a gift to the holy man. Do we have anything else?"

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         “If we go,” Saul asked his servant, “what could we bring the man since the food in our sacks is gone? There’s no present we can bring the man of God. What do we have?”

JPS (Tanakh)                        “But if we go,” Saul said to his servant, “what can we bring the man? For the food in our bags is all gone, and there is nothing we can bring to the man of God as a present. What have we got?

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Then Saul said to his servant, “But behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? For the bread is gone from our sack and there is no present to bring to the man of God. What do we have?”

Young's Updated LT              And Saul says to his young man, ‘And lo, we go, and what do we bring in to the man? For the bread has gone from our vessels, and a present there is not to bring in to the man of God—what is with us?’

What is the gist of this verse? Saul says that they cannot go to the man of God because they do not have a present to give him.

Translation: Then Saul said to his servant, “If we go,... Saul will come up with an excuse not to go to this man of God. As I mentioned earlier, Saul and his servant have varying degrees of positive volition.

Translation: ...then what will be bring to the man? From the beginning, this reads: Then Saul said to his young man, “But listen, [if] we go, then what do we bring to the man?” There was such a thing as gracious giving even in the Old Testament. You simply did not inquire of a man of God apart from an offering of some sort. It is difficult to determine at this point whether Saul is expressing negative volition, or whether he is simply following respectful protocol.