When Did Samuel Last See Saul?
Thomas Allen
According to 1 Samuel 15:35, Samuel never saw Saul again:
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
However, according to 1 Samuel 19:24, Saul prophesied before Samuel, which occurred after Samuel never saw Saul again:
And he [Saul] stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?
When did Samuel last see Saul?
Stenning notes that verse 15:35 is inconsistent with verse 19:24. However, according to Stenning, verses 19:18 through 19:24 are late and unhistorical. Verse 15:35 excludes the meeting between Saul and Samuel in verse 19:24. Further, Samuel being the head of the prophets is inconsistent with earlier traditions (1 Samuel 10:5). Moreover, David would have most likely headed to the South where his kinsmen were in Judea and not to the north toward Ramah. Additionally, verse 19:24 may be connected to 1 Samuel 10:10-11, which describes an event that occurred before verse 15:35.
Young disagrees with Stenning and maintains that Samuel was the superintendent of a company of prophets at Ramah. However, he does not discuss the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24.
Weaver does not comment on the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24. Nevertheless, he notes that Samuel being the head of the ecstatic prophets is inconsistent with the stories of Samuel in chapters seven through ten of 1 Samuel. Also, David would have fled south to Judea instead of north. Weaver believes that a collector of stories about David eventually incorporated the story that appears in verses 19:18–24.
Clarke maintains that chronologically, the events of verse 15:35 occurred before the events of verse 19:24. Yet, from Samuel’s perspective, he did not see Saul after verse 15:35 because he no longer had any connections with Saul and no longer acknowledged Saul as king. Also, Clarke states that Samuel superintended the school of prophets at Ramah.
Bennett claims that the conflict between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24 occurs because two different sources were used.
Although the conflict between 1 Samuel 15:35 and 1 Samuel 19:24 presents little difficulty to those who claim that the Bible is infallible (trustworthiness, incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals), it does, however, present great difficulty to people who claim that the Bible is inerrant (without error or misstatement.) Obviously, inconsistencies between passages do call into question inerrancy. Often a great deal of unconvincing mental gymnastics is required to explain away inconsistencies. Two of the favorite excuses used by adherents of inerrancy are that (1) the original autographs but not copies are without error and (2) errors are not real but are things that humans do not understand, i.e., mysteries. Although proponents of inerrancy are inclined toward being absolute literalists, they also use the argument of figures of speech and using round numbers to explain away apparent errors or misstatements. (For example, the Bible states that the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference is three [1 Kings 7:23]; this is explained away by claiming that the writer is using a round number, which is true. However, if the Bible is supposed to be correct in all matters as inerrancy folks declare, should not the writer have used a much more precise number such as 3.1415926535 — especially since most inerrancy proponents argue that the Bible is 100 percent accurate about scientific matters? Moreover, nearly all young-earth, universal-flood adherents reject the flat-earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat — see “A Response to “What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?” by Thomas Allen. Thus, inerrancy adherents are highly selective about the Bible’s correctness on scientific matters.) The only time that an inconsistency presents a problem to an infallibility proponent is when the Bible conflicts with a manmade doctrine, e.g., Paul writing that “there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6) To maintain their doctrine, inerrancy adherents must explain away inconsistencies; infallibility adherents do not.
Bennett, W.H. A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.
Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.
Stenning, J. F. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. Editors, Charles Gore, Henry L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1928.
Weaver, J.W. The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Editor Charles M.Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.
Young, F.E. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editor Charles F. Pfeiffer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.
Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.
No comments:
Post a Comment