Meanwhile the adventurous exploit of his son brought on the crisis which ultimately drove the Philistines back to their own territory. Jonathan, having assaulted a gar- rison of the Philistines (apparently at Michmash [1 Sam. xiv, 31], which therefore must have been situated near Migron in Gibeah [ver. 1], and within sight of it [ver. 15]), Saul, aided by a panic of the enemy, an earth- quake, and the co-operation of his fugitive soldiers, ef- fected a great slaughter; but by a rash and foolish de- nunciation, he (1) impeded his success (ver. 30), (2) in- volved the people in a violation of the law (ver. 33), and (3), unless prevented by the more enlightened conscience of the people, would have ended with putting Jonathan to death for an act which, being done in total igno- rance, could involve no guilt. See Jonathan. This campaign was signalized by two remarkable incidents in the life of Saul. One was the first appearance of his madness in the above rash vow which all but cost the life of his son (ver. 24, 44). The other was the erection of his first altar, built either to celebrate the victory, or to expiate the savage feast of the famished people (ver. 35). This success against the Philistines was followed, not only by their retirement for a time within tlicir own territory, but by other considerable successes against the other enemies of his country — Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah, the Amalek- ites, and the Philistines — all of whom he harassed, but did not subdue. These wars may have occupied two or three years, about the middle of Saul's reign (B.C. 1073-71).
4. SauVs Second Transfiressiov. — The expulsion of the Philistines (although not entirely completed [1 Sam. xiv, 52]) at once placed Saul in a position higher than that of any previous ruler of Israel. Probablj' from this time was formed the organization of royal state, which contained in germ some of the future institutions of the monarch v. The host of 3000 has
been already mentioned (xiii; xxiv, 2; xxvi, 2; comp. 1 Chron. xii, 29). Of this Abner became captain (1 Sam, xiv, 50). A body-guard of young, tall, and handsome Benjamites (Josephus, Ant. vi, (5, G; vii, 14) was also formed of runners and messengers (see 1 Sam. xvi, 15, 17; xxii, 14, 17; xxvi, 22), Of this David was after- wards made the chief. These two were the principal officers of the court, and sat with Jonathan at the king's table (xx, 25), Another officer is incidentally mentioned — the keeper of the royal mules— the comes stahuli, the " constable" of the king — such as appears in the later monarchy (1 Chron. xxvii, 30). He is the first instance of a foreigner employed about the court — being an Edomite or (Sept.) Syrian, of the name of Docg (1 Sam. xxi, 7; xxii, 9). According to JeAvish tradition (Je- rome, Qh. Iheh. ad loc.) he was the servant who accom- panied Saul in his pursuit of his father's asses — who counselled him to send for David (1 Sam. ix, xvi), and whose son ultimateh' killed him (2 Sam. i, 10). The high-priest of the house of Ithamar (Ahimelech or Ahi- jah) was in attendance upon him with the ephod, when he desired it (1 Sam. xiv, 3), and felt himself bound to assist his secret commissioners (xxi, 1-9; xxii, 14). The king himself was distinguished by a state not be- fore marked in the rulers. He had a tall spear of the same Idnd as that described in the hand of Goliath, and the same that now marks the Bedouin sheik. This never left him — in repose (xviii, 10; xix, 9), at his meals (xx, 33), at rest (xxvi, 11), in battle (2 Sam. i, 6). In battle he wore a diadem on his head and a bracelet on his arm (i, 10). He sat at meals on a seat of his own facing his son (1 Sam. XX, 25; Sept.). He was received on his return from battle by the songs of the Israelitish women (xviii, G), among whom he was on such occa- sions specially known as bringing back from the enemy scarlet robes, and golden ornaments for their apparel (2 Sam. i, 24).
The warlike character of his reign naturally still pre- dominated, and he was now able not merelVj like his temporary predecessors, to act on the defensive, but to attack the neighboring tribes of Moab, Ammon. Edom, Zobah, and finally Amalek (1 Sam. xiv. 47). The war with Amalek is twice related, tirst briefly (ver. 48), and then at length (xv, 1-9). Its chief connection with Saul's history lies in the disobedience to the prophetical command of Samuel, shown in the sparing of the king, and the retention of the spoil (B.C. 1070). In this event another trial was atforded Saul before his final rejection — namely, by the command to extirpate the Amalekites, whose hostility to the people of God was inveterate (Deut. XXV, 18; Exod. xvii, 8-lG; Numb, xiv, 42-45; Judg. iii, 13; vi, 3), and who had not by repentance averted that doom which had been delayed 550 years (1 Sam. xiv, 48). The extermination of Amalek and the subsequent execution of Agag belong to the general question of the moral code of the Old Test. See Agag, There is no reason to suppose that Saul spared the king for any other reason than that for which he retained the spoil — namely, to make a more splendid show at the sac- rificial thanksgiving (xv, 21), Such was the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (.-! nt. vi, 7, 2), who ex- pressly says that Agag was spared for his stature and beauty, and such is the general impression left by the description of the celebration of the victory, Saul rides to the southern Carmcl in a chariot (Sept.), never men- tioned elsewhere, and sets up a monument there (Heb. "a hand" [2 Sam. xviii, 18]), which in the Jewish tra- ditions (Jerome, Qit. J/(eb. ad loc.) was a triunijihal arch of olives, myrtles, and palms. In allusion to his crown- ing triumph, Samuel applies to tiod the phrase, "The victory (Vulg. triumphator) of Israel will neither lie nor repent" (1 Sam, xv, 29; and comp. 1 Chron. xxix, 11). The apparent cruelty of this commission was not the reason why it was not fully executed, as Saul himself confessed when Samuel upbraided him, " I feared the people and obeyed their voice" (1 Sam. xv, 24). Tliis stubbornness in persisting to rebel against the direc-