Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Chronicles 10

1 Chronicles 10-29 covers the history of King David, who made Jerusalem the political and religious center of Israel, organized the Levitical ministry in its permanent form, and amassed great stores of wealth and material for the Temple, which his son and successor was to build.

A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE OVERTHROW AND DEATH OF SAUL, BY WAY OF PRELUDE TO THE REIGN OF DAVID.

1 Chronicles 10:1–12 is parallel to 1 Samuel 31:1–13. The general agreement of the two texts is so exact as to rule out the assumption of their independence. We know that the chronicler drew much in his earlier chapters from the Pentateuch; and since he must have been acquainted with the Books of Samuel, it is à priori likely that he made similar use of them. At the same time, a number of small variations—on average, at least three in each verse—some of which can be attributed neither to the quirks or mistakes of copyists nor to the supposed caprice of the compiler, may indicate the use of an additional source, or perhaps of a text of Samuel differing in some respects from the one we possess. (See Introduction.)

Now the Philistines fought against Israel. — For a similarly abrupt beginning, compare Isaiah 2:1. The battle was fought in the plain of Jezreel, or Esdraelon, the scene of so many struggles in ancient history. (Compare Hosea 2:10: I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.)

The men of Israel. — Hebrew, man — a collective expression, which gives a more vivid image of the rout. They fled as one man, or in a body. Samuel has the plural.

Fell down slain in Mount Gilboa. — The Jebel Faku’a rises out of the plain of Jezreel to a height of one thousand seven hundred feet. The defeated army of Saul fell back upon this mountain, which had been their first position (1 Samuel 28:4), but were pursued there. Slain is right, as in 1 Chronicles 10:8.

The Philistines followed hard after Saul. —Literally, clung to Saul, that is, hotly pursued him. (Compare to 1 Kings 22:31.) The destruction of the king and his sons would make their triumph complete.

The sons of Saul. —Omit the. Eshbaal, Saul’s fourth son, was not in the battle (2 Samuel 2:8; compare to 1 Chronicles 8:33). Like Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, Saul may have witnessed the death of his sons (2 Kings 25:7). Jonathan, at least, would not be far from him in the last struggle. In their deaths they were not divided.

The battle pressed severely against Saul. —Literally, was heavy upon (Samuel, "to") him, like a burden weighing him to the earth.

And the archers hit him. —Literally, And those who shoot with the bow came upon him; and he shuddered (Samuel, “greatly”) before the shooters. He shuddered or trembled (Deuteronomy 2:25). The verb properly means to writhe, to suffer anguish (Isaiah 23:4).

Saul’s deadly terror was natural. He believed himself forsaken by God and now stood, after a lost battle, beset by murderous foes whom he could not reach. There was no chance of a fair hand-to-hand encounter.

The Hebrew word for “archers” is the same in both places in Samuel (môrîm); here a rarer form (yôrîm, 2 Chronicles 35:23) fills the second place. The Philistines were from Egypt, and the bow was a favourite Egyptian weapon. The hieroglyph for “soldier” (menfat) is a man with a bow and quiver.

And Saul said. —So Abimelech (Judges 9:54).

Lest these uncircumcised come. —The account in Samuel adds, “and thrust me through.” An inadvertent repetition in that account, or an omission in this passage, is possible. Or, we might say, Saul preferred death by a friendly stroke to the thrusts of insulting enemies.

And abuse me. —The Hebrew strictly means “to make a toy of” or “to sport with.” For example, How I have made a toy of Egypt (Exodus 10:2); and it is used of insulting a fallen enemy, as in this case (Jeremiah 38:19).

Took a sword. —Literally, the sword—i.e., his sword.

He also fell on the sword. —Samuel says, “his sword,” that is, the sword of the armor-bearer.

And died. —Samuel adds “with him,” which seems to be omitted here for brevity. This may also be the reason for other similar omissions. Loyalty to his chief, and perhaps dread of the enemy, were the armor-bearer’s motives.