All men are subjected in life to various tests which prove "what spirit they are of." These tests may appear insignificant in themselves (like that which was applied to Adam and Eve - Genesis 2:17), but they involve important principles, and the manner in which they are endured is followed by serious consequences. The position of Saul necessitated a trial of his fidelity to the fundamental principle of the theocratic kingdom, viz., unconditional obedience on the part of the king to the will of God as declared by his prophets. He was directed

(1) to wait for Samuel seven days, and

(2) to attempt nothing till he came (1 Samuel 10:8). He omitted the former and did the latter, and thus took his first wrong step - a step never retraced, and leading to a course which ended on the fatal field of Gilboa. Observe -

I. ITS APPARENT EXPEDIENCY. His conscience told him that it was not right, as he virtually acknowledged in the defence he offered for his conduct (vers. 11, 12). Yet he persuaded himself (as others are accustomed to do) that it was venial, expedient, and even necessary, because of -

1. The pressure of worldly circumstances. "Because I saw that the people were scattered from me," etc. Resources diminish, and danger is imminent. When they are considered in themselves alone, anxiety and fear increase, and temptation becomes strong to make use of any means of relief that may be presented. How often are men tempted by the plea of necessity to disobey the voice of conscience! The tempter says, "It is better to steal than starve, better to sin than perish."

2. The disappointment of religious expectations. "And that thou camest not at the appointed time." "Help has been long waited for, but it comes not; nor is it likely, now that the seventh day is drawing to a close, that it will come at all. The promise has not been fulfilled. The time for action has arrived, and the long delay indicates that the most expedient course must be taken. Nothing else remains. If there be any blame, it cannot be attributed to one who has waited so long, has been left in such extremity, and acts for the best."

3. The efficacy of ceremonial observances. "And I forced myself, and offered a burnt offering." Inasmuch as such an offering was required on entering upon his enterprise against the Philistines, he could not hope to succeed without it, and he had at all times great regard for the external ceremonies enjoined by the law (1 Samuel 14:33, 35). A doubtful or wrong act is often supposed to be blameless when performed in connection with sacred rites, or with a righteous end in view (John 16:2); and disobedience is sometimes clothed in a religious guise, its real nature being thereby obscured to the view of conscience, and its commission rendered easy.

4. The prospect of immediate advantages. Apparent and immediate good is the first and last and most powerful incentive to departure from the path of duty. "The tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes," etc. (Genesis 3:6). "And the history of Adam is as ancient as the world, but is fresh in practice, and is still revived in the sons of Adam."

II. ITS REAL CULPABILITY. "What hast thou done?" said Samuel, speaking' as with the voice of God, and seeking to arouse his conscience and lead him to repentance. He had been guilty of -

1. Disobedience to a plain commandment. "Thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God" (ver. 13). The fact could not be denied. He had not waited all the appointed time, and he had acted without Divine direction. He had rejected the supreme authority of the Divine King, and no excuse that might be made could do away with his guilt. "Sin is not estimated by God according to its outward form, but according to the amount and extent of the principle of evil embodied in that form."

2. Distrust of promised help. Men sometimes wait long for the fulfilment of Divine promises, but not long enough; and their lack of perseverance shows weakness or absence of faith. The force of adverse circumstances is exaggerated by being exclusively dwelt upon; doubt of the power of God prevails through disregard of preservation from harm hitherto afforded; and as faith unites the soul to God, so unbelief severs it from him, leaves it a prey to disquiet and impatience, and leads it to adopt worldly and godless expedients. Unbelief was the root of the transgression of Saul, as it is of the transgression of men generally.

3. Formality in religious service. A burnt offering was a symbol and expression of consecration, and when offered aright, in a spirit of obedience, it honoured God and obtained his blessing; but when wrongly offered it was worthless, dishonoured him, and was abomination in his sight (1 Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 21:27; Isaiah 1:13). It is the same with other outward forms of service. "Saul is a specimen of that class of persons who show a certain reverence and zeal for the outward forms of religion, and even a superstitious reliance on them, but are not careful to cherish the inner spirit of vital religion" (Wordsworth's 'Com.').

4. Self-will, pride, and presumption. In disobeying the will of God he set up his own will as supreme, and was guilty of pride, "by which sin fell the angels." It is not said that he offered sacrifice with his own hand, and he may have simply directed it to be done by the priest who was with him (1 Samuel 14:18); nor is it certain that if he had done so he would have gone beyond the privilege and prerogative possessed by other kings. His sin did not consist of intrusion into the priestly office. It was nevertheless very great. "He had cast away his obedience to God. The crown he thought was his own. From that moment he fell; for all our good qualities retain their ascendancy over our evil passions by the presence and power of God claiming them as his." "Samuel, according to modern expositors of the story, was angry because he felt that he was losing his own influence over the mind of the king. No; he was angry because the king was so much the slave of his influence, or of any influence that was exerted over him for a moment; because he was losing the sense of responsibility to One higher than a prophet, to One who had appointed him to rule not in his own name, but as the minister and executor of the Divine righteousness" (Maurice).

III. ITS EXCEEDING FOLLY. "Thou hast done foolishly" (ver. 13). The folly of the sinner appears in his -

1. Being deceived by the appearances of things - the magnitude of danger, the false promises of advantage, the specious arguments of expediency. He is like the foolish man who built his house upon the sand, instead of "digging deep and laying the foundation on a rock" (Luke 6:48). He is infatuated, fascinated, and under a glamour cast over his mind by his own evil desires and the spell of the tempter.

2. Making light of the enormous evil of sin. It is the only real evil. But he is thoughtless, ignorant, and foolish enough to account it a trivial thing, which may be easily excused and passed by. As he who says in his heart "No God" is called a "fool," so he who deems it a little matter to offend him is appropriately designated by the same name. "Fools make a mock at sin" (Proverbs 14:9); and he who makes light of sin makes light of God.

3. Leaving the only path of safety and honour. "For now" (if thou hadst obeyed his commandment) "the Lord would have established thy sovereignty over Israel forever."

4. Entering on a course of certain loss and misery.

(1) Inward - weakened moral power, increased tendency to sin, unsteadiness, rashness, etc. What a man does once he is almost certain under similar circumstances to do again. Saul's subsequent course was a continuation and complete development of the same kind of transgression as he now committed. He was already so blinded by sin as not to repent.

(2) Outward. "But now thy sovereignty shall not continue," etc. (ver. 14). The sentence "embodied the principle that no monarchy could be enduring in Israel which did not own the supreme authority of God," and it declared that Saul's crown would not be transmitted to his descendants; but not until afterwards was he personally rejected from being king (1 Samuel 15:23). Having failed to endure the trial to which he was subjected, he was left by Samuel (ver. 15), and nothing is further recorded of his intercourse with the prophet for some years. "He had not even accomplished the object of his unseasonable sacrifice, viz., to prevent the dispersion of the people" (Keil). O that he had waited a little longer! "Saul lost his kingdom for want of two or three hours' patience."

1. Beware of the first wrong step. "It is always marked by a peculiarity of evil which does not attach to any subsequent offences". (Miller). Principiis obsta.

2. If you have taken such a step, instantly repent of it. "It is not sinning, that ruins men, but sinning and not repenting, falling and not getting up again." - D.

The sacred historian prefaces the account of the War of Independence with a statement as to Saul's age and reign. The Revised Version thus gives it: "Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned two years over Israel." There is no mention of Saul's ago in the present Hebrew text, the number having been accidentally dropped in the copying; but the number thirty, which the translators of the Revised Version have adopted from an emendation of the Septuagint, is very probably correct, as thirty was the usual age for public service amongst the Jews. As to the second half of the statement, many, such as Ewald and Dean Stanley, take it to be a correct account of the period that elapsed between Saul's election and the War of Independence. According to them, the War of Independence began after Saul had reigned two years. But there are several considerations which go to show that this can hardly be accepted.

1. The abject condition of the country when the War of Independence began.

2. The age of Jonathan. Jonathan appears in the War of Independence as the captain of a thousand and one of the most heroic warriors of the nation; and as such he could hardly have been less than twenty years of age. That would make him, if Saul had only reigned two years, eighteen years of age when his father was elected king.

3. The sad deterioration in the character of Saul. The character of Saul, as displayed in the War of Independence, is in marked contrast with that portrayed in the early part of his history. As a young man in the beginning of his career, he was meek, humble, considerate, and self-restrained; but in the War of Independence he is impatient, imperious, cruel, and rash. And according to the Latin proverb, Nemo repents turpissimus est — no one becomes wicked all at once — the period of little more than a year is much too short to account for this baleful and disastrous change. As the sacred writers are in the habit of giving the age of each king, and the length of his reign — there are no fewer than thirty-seven illustrations of this in the Old Testament — it seems extremely probable that this was what was actually done in this passage. And I am convinced that the passage originally stood thus: "Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned forty years over Israel." My reasons for thinking so are the following: —(1) The testimony of Paul. He said to the Jews in the synagogue at Antioch, in Pisidia: "And afterwards they asked for a king: and God gave unto them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for the space of forty years" (Acts 13:21).(2) The simple way in which the text might be corrupted. There is the strongest ground for believing that the numbers wore originally written, not in words, but in letters which were used as numerals. (See Keil on Samuel in loc.) The Hebrew letter for forty was Mem, and for two Beth; and, as the two letters in the ancient Hebrew characters are not unlike, the copyist might easily mistake the one for the other, and put into the text the letter for two instead of the letter for forty.(3) The period of forty years seems needful to account for all the facts of the history. It seems to explain best the age of Jonathan, the deterioration in the character of Saul, the abject condition of the country under the Philistines when the War of Independence began, and the fact that Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, was forty years of age when he began to reign at Mahanaim (2 Samuel 2:10). Saul might marry Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz, shortly after his confirmation in the kingdom; and from this union Jonathan might be born towards the close of the second year haul, the abject condition of the country under the Philistines when the War of Independence began, this national struggle would take place in the twenty-third year of Saul's reign. The contrast between this national gathering at Gilgal and that which took place when Saul was anointed king is very striking. Then there was a full muster, but now it is comparatively meagre. Then the people were flushed with victory, but now they are trembling with fear. Then the future was all bright, but now it is all dark, with hardly one gleam of hope. The truth seems to be that Saul's difficulty lay, not in forcing himself to act, but in restraining himself from acting for nearly the whole of the seven days. Saul's justification of himself was plausible, and might be deemed satisfactory before an earthly tribunal; but Samuel, who was inspired by the All-seeing One, treated it as altogether worthless. The kingdom, instead of descending to his eldest son, as it would have done, had he been faithful, was to be given to another whom God had chosen, and who was to be a man after His own heart. And if we are right in supposing that the War of Independence occurred in the twenty-third year of Saul's reign, David would then be a boy at Bethlehem about thirteen years of age

(T. Kirk.)