They had come to the land of Zuph when Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come and let us return; lest my father give up the asses, and be anxious about us.
The verse catches Saul at the moment he quits. His search for his father's lost donkeys has come to nothing. He turns back because he fears his father is now worrying about him — a small decision that God is about to turn into the doorway to a throne.
Commentators have read the district names along Saul's route as a picture of where people look for what is lost. One writer follows each stage:
Saul searched diligently enough in various places for these lost donkeys, but fails to find them. First he goes through Mount Ephraim, "fruitfulness," and the land of Shalisha, "the third part," which may have stood for a very large territory. But no wanderer has ever been found in the place of fruitfulness, or in any wide stretch of country. Man surely has not been fruitful for God. He next seeks through the land of Shaalim, "the place of hollows or valleys," and the land of Jemini, "my right hand," which would suggest exaltation. But the natural man is found neither in humiliation nor in exaltation. The poor and degraded are as far from God as those who are exalted.
Zuph is where he stops instead of searching. Its name carries a warning:
The land of Zuph comes as a fourth stage — the number of testing and failure. There he does not search, but gives up his quest. The name Zuph means "honeycomb," the picture of the sweetness of natural things, which have overcome many more than Saul.
Saul stops for his father's sake. One writer counts this to his credit: the same obedience that began the errand now ends it.
The father was a rule to Saul in abandoning the pursuit as much as in undertaking the search in obedience... So "little in your own eyes" is tied to ready obedience to the will of another, and to self-denying devotion of heart. It is the same whether the occasion is small or great — the missing donkeys of Kish, or Agag the king of the Amalekites.
Commentators differ here. Another reads the same words as a man running out of stamina:
Saul seems to have lacked the fortitude and the persevering qualities required in a leader. He is worn out with his tramping, and seems to have little zeal for his father's interests. So he proposes to his servant that they retrace their steps and head home.
Saul's answer is to go home. The servant, not the master, is the one who thinks of asking God:
In his difficulty, Saul apparently had no idea of asking God. It is a delight to us to know that our God is interested in small matters as well as great. The true child of faith today, if he lost his donkeys, would not think the thing too small for God's notice. Are we not invited in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving to make our requests known to God? (Philippians 4:6). But Saul was blessed with an excellent servant. He told Saul there was a man of God in the city they were approaching, and suggested that they consult him about their journey.
The same writer notes how strange Saul's ignorance is, given who Samuel was:
The fact is, flesh is never interested in what God is doing, nor in the instruments He is using... In reality, the LORD was more interested in Samuel at that moment than in any other person in the world, for he was the man who stood before Him continually on behalf of His erring people. Yet to Saul he appears to have been unknown!
The moment Saul gives up is the moment God's plan takes over:
But God had His own intentions concerning Saul. He makes the object of Saul's search a link of introduction to the prophet Samuel, for the setting up of kingship on the earth. The details of this and the next chapter are remarkable. They show how fully God holds everyone and every circumstance in His own hand, so that His will is the controlling power...
Saul never does find what he set out for. One writer says who did:
Saul did not find the donkeys. They were restored to his father by divine Providence, and no mere man has ever brought back the wayward wanderer to God... It would take a Seeker of a different kind to find the wanderers, and He found them in a place where Saul never searched. He went down into death and took His place under judgment, and there He found the wanderer.
Another writer draws two lessons from the failed errand — one about Saul, one about us:
The man who had been labouring in vain would learn in this way that everything had been done apart from him, and would also be assured of his father's longing for him... Our own works are worse than useless — God calls them "dead works."
- Searching. Saul covers fruitful country, deep valleys and high ground alike, and finds nothing. No human search brings the wanderer home.
- Stopping. At Zuph, a name meaning "honeycomb," he gives up; the sweetness of natural things has ended more searches than his.
- Turning. He stops for his father's sake. Commentators differ: a son still small in his own eyes, or a leader short on staying power?
- Asking. The servant, not Saul, thinks of consulting God. Yet nothing is too small for prayer — not even lost donkeys.
- Finding. God finds Saul before Saul finds the donkeys. A failed errand becomes his introduction to Samuel, and the donkeys come home without his labour at all.
And he said to him, Behold now, a man of God is in this city, and the man is held in honour; all that he says comes surely to pass. Let us now go thither perhaps he will shew us the way that we should go.
Saul is out hunting his father's stray donkeys, and it is his servant, not Saul, who thinks of asking God. In one sentence the servant names a man in the city, vouches for his character, and proposes a detour — and that detour puts a whole nation into Saul's hand.
Saul's ignorance is striking, because Samuel was no hidden figure. One writer reads it as a clue to Saul's heart.
Until his servant prompted him, Saul seems not to have known Samuel. The servant, judging by his words, knew something of the man of God, while his master knew nothing about him. Yet the prophet lived inside the tribe of Benjamin, the tribe Saul and his family belonged to. Samuel's round of Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpeh each year was all within the territory of little Benjamin... Could that have been so if grace had already worked on Saul's heart and brought him to know God?
The good idea came from below — from the servant, not the master.
In his difficulty, Saul apparently had no notion of inquiring of God... But Saul was favoured with an excellent servant. The man told him there was a man of God in the city they were approaching, and suggested they consult him about their journey. Servants played an important part in the blessing of Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5). From this we may learn never to despise the counsel and ministry of even the humblest messengers.
The phrase the servant uses is not a compliment he invented. It is a standing title in Scripture.
The expression "man of God" occurs about 76 times in the Old Testament, and only twice in the New. Except where Moses is spoken of, it refers to those who witnessed to God's people in a day of departure.
The servant recommends Samuel not for his office but for his record.
In 1 Samuel we read that Saul's servant said of Samuel, "he is a man who is held in honour; all that he says comes true" (1 Sam. 9:6). I want to draw attention to one thing: the reliability of Samuel's words. That is what made him honourable in the sight of God and of the people of Israel. People could rely on his words. His words came from God... Now if we apply this to ourselves today, are our words reliable? Are we honourable in this sense? Do we say one thing to one person and the opposite to another, out of favouritism or for popularity or for any other reason? Can people rest on what we say?
Saul agrees to go, but then worries that he has nothing to bring. One writer reads that worry as the natural man's whole religion in miniature.
Saul clearly had no thought of turning to God in this matter, and apparently no knowledge of His prophet. Now he can only suggest, as human righteousness always tends to suggest, that some price is needed if they are to get anything from God's hand. How like the natural man this is! He must bring his present to God if he is to receive anything from Him. He knows nothing of that generous Giver whose delight it is to give freely to those who have nothing to buy with.
Nothing in the chapter looks planned. One writer traces the chain of small details back to a single hand.
Notice again in this chapter how even the smallest events work together to establish God's designs, the goal He has in mind. Think of the loss of the donkeys and Saul's useless efforts in the land of Israel. Think of the thought that came to his servant, the maidens at the well, Samuel's presence in the city that day, and the peace offering. Indeed, every step, every decision and every word of the prophet acting in communion with his God works toward that same end.
Another writer sets the lost animals beside the lost nation.
God's overruling shows plainly in the way Saul is led up to meet Samuel, with no idea of the hand that is guiding him... Saul is looking for his father's donkeys, which have gone astray. What he finds is a stubborn and rebellious nation, far worse than these, put into his hand without his seeking, so that he might bring it back to God.
- Guided. A hand Saul cannot see steers him to Samuel. The lost donkeys, the servant's idea and the timing all serve one design.
- Servant. That hand uses the lowest man present. Never despise counsel from humble messengers.
- Honourable. People trust Samuel for one reason: his word always holds. Can people rest on what you say?
- Ignorant. Saul lived in Samuel's own small tribe and still did not know him. Had grace yet touched his heart?
- Free. Saul assumes he must pay for an answer. God delights to give freely to those who have nothing to buy with.
And Saul said to his servant, But if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and we have no present to give to the man of God what have we?
Saul's search for his father's lost donkeys has failed. When his servant suggests asking the prophet, Saul's first thought is not hope but cost: what can we pay him?
The journey has lasted long enough that the food is gone. One writer reads Saul's question as worry over a fee.
But Saul had a difficulty. Would not Samuel expect payment for his services? … They had nearly used up their supplies, for they had been away from home some time. … It is hard for poor, darkened flesh to rise above the thought of payment. Grace is foreign to its mind. God as a giver is unthinkable to flesh. Yet this is the very character in which all who receive His favour know Him. He gave His only Son, the basis of all other giving; with Him He freely gives us all things; and from the same generous grace come the gift of the Holy Spirit and eternal life.
Saul was not inventing the idea out of nowhere. Bringing a present to a prophet was normal in Israel. But such gifts carried a danger.
Gifts to judges were very apt to become bribes, and the law strictly forbade them. It was also usual to take presents to prophets (1 Sam. 9:7). Since the prophets were sometimes judges, these gifts could easily become bribes. That is what happened with the sons of Samuel. Samuel himself, though, could challenge the people, and they admitted that he had never taken a bribe to blind his eyes (1 Sam. 8:3; 1 Sam. 12:3).
Saul cannot picture approaching God's prophet with nothing in hand.
Saul had no thought of turning to God in this matter, and seems to have had no knowledge of His prophet. So he can only suggest what human righteousness always tends to suggest: that they must pay some price to get anything from God's hand. How like the natural man this is! He must bring his present to God if he is to receive anything from Him, and he knows nothing of that generous Giver whose delight it is to give freely to those who have nothing to buy with.
What happens later reverses Saul's calculation.
Saul thought it essential that they have a present to give to the man of God. … It is the principle of law, and it fails to see that God is a God of pure grace. Sadly, Saul never learned better than this all his life. The servant had a quarter of a shekel of silver, and Saul agrees that this will be suitable, though later we never read of his giving it to Samuel. It was quite the opposite: Samuel had made provision FOR SAUL.
Notice who is doing the thinking. One writer reads the servant's initiative as a verdict on Saul.
Saul clearly lacked the quality of leadership. If he had it, his father's servant would not have taken it upon himself to say to his master's son, "Now let us go there" — leading Saul rather than following him. He lacked dignity too, or a mere servant would never have offered advice unasked… Saul had no generosity either — and without that no one becomes a successful leader of men. "There is no present to bring to the man of God. What do we have?" he says. Was the son of wealthy Kish without money on a journey?
Commentators differ over how harshly to judge him here. One puts it bluntly:
1 Samuel 9. Saul, wretched man! He ignored the man by whom God had done so many things, and God who had done them.
Another counts the same scene among Saul's credits, and draws a wider conclusion from it.
Saul has all the natural qualities of a leader of the people. He is strong and brave, handsome, tall, a choice man (vv. 1-2). His moral qualities are just as remarkable. He is submissive and affectionate toward his father (v. 5). He is willing to listen to the advice of those under him (v. 10). He is little in his own eyes, whether in his tribe or in his family (v. 21). If the trial God is about to make does not succeed with such a man, it is certainly because man's condition in general leaves no hope.
- Empty — The bread is gone and the bag is bare; Saul's question comes out of real shortage on a search that has failed.
- Custom — Taking a present to a prophet was ordinary in Israel. But such gifts could slide into bribes, as they did with Samuel's own sons.
- Instinct — The natural reflex is to buy from God. That misses the Giver who delights to give to people with nothing to pay.
- Reversal — We never read of Saul handing the quarter shekel over. Samuel is the one who ends up providing for him.
- Verdict — Writers read Saul in different ways, some harshly and some kindly. Either way, the test of a man with every natural advantage shows where human hope ends.
And the servant answered Saul again and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver; that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.
Saul and his servant have hunted for his father's lost donkeys and found nothing. When the servant suggests asking the man of God, Saul's first thought is not whether the man can help, but what it will cost.
Twice in this scene the servant is ahead of his master. He knows where the man of God is, and he is the one with money.
Saul clearly lacked the quality of leadership. Otherwise his father's servant would not have taken it on himself to say to his master's son, "Now let us go there." The servant was leading Saul, instead of following him. He lacked dignity too, or a mere servant would never have offered his advice unasked. Neither did Saul have generosity — without which no one becomes a successful leader of men. "There is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?" he says. Was the son of wealthy Kish without money on a journey? It is his servant again who comes to the front. Saul did not even know who the man of God was. Soon after, standing face to face with Samuel himself, he does not recognise him.
That same servant does what a servant should do — he points his master toward God.
But at this point the servant speaks up. He advises, as a true servant will, that they "ask of God." Saul does not think of this. Nor does he know the man who can declare His mind. All of this is characteristic.
The servant offers the quarter shekel so the man of God will tell them their way. Payment first, answer second.
It is hard for poor, unenlightened flesh to rise above the thought of payment. Grace is foreign to its mind. God as a giver is unthinkable to flesh. Yet it is in this wonderful character that all the objects of His favour know Him. He gave His only Son, and that is the basis of all other giving. With Him He freely gives us all things. From the same generous grace comes the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). Flesh always thinks of God as demanding something. Yet it never considers that He should expect much.
Saul assumes that God works by trade.
He must bring his present to God if he is to receive anything from Him. He knows nothing of that generous Giver, whose delight it is to give freely to those who have nothing to buy with.
Saul could have asked a favour. Instead he tried to buy an answer.
Suppose Saul had had the least idea of the greatness of God, and of the moral dignity of the man who represented Him. Then it might have occurred to him that it would be more fitting to ask a favour than to try to buy the information he needed for "a fourth part of a shekel of silver." The conduct of Saul and his servant suggests that neither of them had any real sense of having to do with God. This did not look promising for one who was soon to be Israel's King.
The coin is silver. One writer hears in it an echo of another silver payment in Israel.
Saul's confession of poverty makes the servant's offer of the fourth part of a shekel of silver possible. That reminds us of the half-shekel of atonement money that every child of Israel had to pay. Whatever the thought in the servant's mind may have been, and whether or not the price was ever handed to the prophet, there is at least a partial suggestion here. All approach to God, all learning of His mind, must be on the basis of atonement.
The story never mentions the coin again. The giving runs the other way.
Saul, however, thought it essential that they have a present to give to the man of God. Men's natural thoughts always run this way. They assume that God looks for something from man first, before He will answer his need. It is the legal principle that fails to realise that God is a God of pure grace. Sadly, Saul never learned better than this all his life. The servant had a fourth part of a shekel of silver, and Saul agrees that this will do. Yet later we never read of his giving it to Samuel. It was quite the opposite: Samuel had made provision for Saul.
- Ask. The servant, not the master, is the one who thinks of turning to God.
- Pay. Saul's first move toward God is a price. Flesh cannot imagine God as a Giver.
- Small. A quarter shekel was the price Saul set on God's answer. He had no real sense of dealing with God at all.
- Silver. If any true approach to God is pictured here, it rests on atonement, not on purchase.
- Reversed. The coin is never handed over. Samuel had already made provision for Saul. Grace arrives before anyone can pay.
(In former time in Israel, when a man went to ask counsel of God, he said, Come and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a Prophet was in former time called a Seer.)
The verse pauses the story of Saul hunting for lost donkeys to explain a word. In older days people used a different name for the man Saul was about to meet, and the name they chose says a lot about them.
The note matches two names to one man. But the two words describe two different acts.
We are told in verse 9 that the title "Prophet" referred to the same person as "Seer," and the first of these names had replaced the second. The seer, of course, is one who sees or discerns. The prophet passes on what he discerned as coming from God.
The older name pointed to what God let these men see. Later passages show how unwelcome that sight could be.
They were so called apparently because God gave them to foresee events or to see visions. Isaiah 30:10 confirms this. There rebellious Israel said to the seers, in effect, "Do not see." They did not want to hear what God had to say to them. Ezekiel also says, "Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!" (Ezekiel 13:3).
One word looks at what comes out of the man. The other looks at where it came from. The word people preferred showed where their interest lay.
In former times it was the custom to speak of the man of God as a "seer" — one who sees the future, or what is not visible to the eyes of sense. In other words, the people were more occupied with the result of the prophet's ministry than with its Source. The later word "prophet" suggests the Source from which he received all his inspiration, which then flowed out from him.
That preference fits Saul himself. He goes looking for a seer, while a prophet is already looking for him.
The people of the time spoke only of the "seer." It was a day of decline. Worldly-minded men thought much more of the effect than of the cause. They sought the one and ignored the other. God had spoken long before of the "prophet"; the people cared only for the "seer." Saul, on this low ground, approves what he could not begin. He too seeks the "seer"; while the prophet, taught by God, is seeking for Him this blind man, brought by a way he does not know.
The verse assumes a settled habit: when you wanted God's mind, you went to a certain man. That habit grew out of a failure. The priests were the appointed link to God, and they had proved unfaithful.
The priesthood was unfaithful, and the ordinary means God had set up for approaching Him were about to be lost. But the grace of God could not leave His people without help and without a way of communicating with Himself. He gives Samuel — that is, prophecy. Through it, in sovereign grace, He approaches man and makes His mind known. Samuel is the first of this long line of prophets who pass on God's word. Without this provision, the people's unfaithfulness would have left them with no resource.
Such a man gave more than predictions about the future. That is why Saul could bring him an everyday question about missing animals.
The high priest represented the people before God. His failure was not to hinder communications from God as often as the occasion might call for them, whether unsought by the people or as answers to their requests. The prophet was not just someone who foretold the future. He was someone who had the mind of God — for present needs, or to reveal things to come.
The two titles also work as two halves of one service. Together they set a standard for anyone who speaks for God.
Put simply, the Seer sees something (Ezekiel 13:3). The Prophet tells something. People have often said that the Prophet is a "forth-teller" rather than a "foreteller." … Suppose the risen and exalted Christ fills our soul's vision. Suppose that by the Spirit's power that new world of life and glory lies open before us, with Christ as its Centre and Sun. Then we have something to tell.
- Two names, one man. "Seer" is the older word for the same person later called "prophet". The seer sees; the prophet passes on what he saw from God.
- Seer looks at the result. The popular title fixed on what people got out of the man — foreseen events and visions — not on where it came from.
- Prophet names the Source. The later word points back to the Source of all he said. The change in wording exposes a generation that wanted effects and ignored the cause.
- Prophecy was grace after failure. The priesthood failed, but God did not leave His people without a way of hearing Him. He raised up Samuel, the first of a long line.
- Sight leads to speech. The prophet is more a forth-teller than a foreteller. The same order still holds: see Christ first, then you have something to tell.