Saul was [forty] years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,
      I. Saul was very weak and impolitic, and did not order his affairs with discretion. Saul was the son of one year (so the first words are in the original), a phrase which we make to signify the date of his reign, but ordinarily it signifies the date of one's birth, and therefore some understand it figuratively--he was as innocent and good as a child of a year old; so the Chaldee paraphrase: he was without fault, like the son of a year. But, if we admit a figurative sense, it may as well intimate that he was ignorant and imprudent, and as unfit for business as a child of a year old: and the subsequent particulars make this more accordant with his character than the former. But we take it rather, as our own translation has it, Saul reigned one year, and nothing happened that was considerable, it was a year of no action; but in his second year he did as follows:-- 1. he chose a band of 3000 men, of whom he himself commanded 2000, and his son Jonathan 1000, 1 Samuel 13:2; 1 Samuel 13:2. The rest of the people he dismissed to their tents. If he intended these only for the guard of his person and his honorary attendants, it was impolitic to have so many, if for a standing army, in apprehension of danger from the Philistines, it was no less impolitic to have so few; and perhaps the confidence he put in this select number, and his disbanding the rest of that brave army with which he had lately beaten the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11:8-11; 1 Samuel 11:8-11), was looked upon as an affront to the kingdom, excited general disgust, and was the reason he had so few at his call when he had occasion for them. The prince that relies on a particular party weakens his own interest in the whole community. 2. He ordered his son Jonathan to surprise and destroy the garrison of the Philistines that lay near him in Geba, 1 Samuel 13:3; 1 Samuel 13:3. I wish there were no ground for supposing that this was a violation or infraction of some articles with the Philistines, and that it was done treacherously and perfidiously. The reason why I suspect it is because it is said that, for doing it, Israel was had in abomination, or, as the word is, did stink with the Philistines (1 Samuel 13:4; 1 Samuel 13:4), as men void of common honesty and whose word could not be relied on. If it was so, we will lay the blame, not on Jonathan who did it, but on Saul, his prince and father, who ordered him to do it, and perhaps kept him in ignorance of the truth of the matter. Nothing makes the name of Israel odious to those that are without so much as the fraud and dishonesty of those that are called by that worthy name. If professors of religion cheat and over-reach, break their word and betray their trust, religion suffers by it, and is had in abomination with the Philistines. Whom may one trust if not an Israelite, one that, it is expected, should be without guile? 3. When he had thus exasperated the Philistines, then he began to raise forces, which, if he had acted wisely, he would have done before. When the Philistines had a vast army ready to pour in upon him, to avenge the wrong he had done them, then was he blowing the trumpet through the land, among a careless, if not a disaffected people, saying, Let the Hebrews hear (1 Samuel 13:3; 1 Samuel 13:3), and so as many as thought fit came to Saul to Gilgal, 1 Samuel 13:4; 1 Samuel 13:4. But now the generality, we may suppose, drew back (either in dislike of Saul's politics or in dread of the Philistines' power), who, if he had summoned them sooner, would have been as ready at his beck as they were when he marched against the Ammonites. We often find that after-wit would have done much better before and have prevented much inconvenience.