1 Samuel 4:1b–11

Original Meaning

War with the Philistines (4:1b–4)

WE BEGIN WITH a textual difficulty that has an impact on our understanding of the events described here. As the Hebrew text stands now (reflected in the NIV), we are left with no idea who the aggressors are in this conflict, the Philistines or the Israelites. The Israelites simply go to war against the Philistines. But the LXX has an additional sentence at the beginning of our text, which appears to have been unintentionally omitted in the received Hebrew (or Masoretic) text: “In those days the Philistines assembled for war against Israel.”1 This reading removes any ambiguity, making it clear that the Philistines are the aggressors.

This general introduction to the ark narrative, in fact, describes the hostilities between the Philistines and Israelites that dominated Israel’s history for nearly two centuries, during the days of the judges and the early monarchy. This persistent conflict, in which neither side achieved a decisive defeat of the other, is the historical backdrop against which we should read part of Judges, all of 1 Samuel, and much of 2 Samuel. The Philistine threat presented Israel with its greatest challenge since entering the Promised Land. During the judges period, Israel had been oppressed by various nomadic peoples uninterested in permanent conquest or empire building. But in the Philistines, the Israelites were confronted with a technologically advanced force that had hegemony on its mind, a people interested in more land and permanent domination.

The Philistines appeared in southwestern Canaan around the beginning of the Iron I period, approximately 1200 B.C., apparently as part of the migrating “sea peoples” attested in Egyptian sources.2 They were to play an important role in Old Testament history for the next two centuries. They settled in the southwestern coastal plains, occupying principally five cities as a unified Philistine pentapolis: Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron (Josh. 13:3; Judg. 3:3). Each city was governed by a “lord,” sometimes called simply “king.”3 The significance of the five Philistine lords will become clear later in the ark narrative.

Though neither side held the decisive advantage, the Philistines began to dominate during the middle of the eleventh century, when they gained a militarily strategic advantage in the use of iron technology, for reasons that are not entirely clear (1 Sam. 13:19–21). They desired to expand into the fertile central hill region, only recently settled by the new Israelite population. But the Israelites needed further holdings to the west, making this a classic battle over Lebensraum. During the judges period, Philistine encroachment into Israelite territory had resulted in the relocation of the tribe of Dan (Judg. 18). Now continued aggression threatened to result in more losses in Israel’s heartland.

In 4:2, the Philistines rout the Israelites, killing about four thousand soldiers at Ebenezer. The relationship between this Ebenezer and the place by the same name in 7:12 is uncertain. Several scholars feel the two Ebenezers should be distinguished from each other for geographical reasons.4 Though that is probably true, we should not miss the literary symmetry created by the use of the same geographical name. The ark narrative begins with a loss to the Philistines at Ebenezer, but it concludes with a victory at a new Ebenezer.5 What is lost to the Philistines will some day be restored. Though these are separate Ebenezers, Israel comes to understand the full significance of God’s help in their time of need (see comments on ch. 7).

The question asked by the elders of Israel in 4:3 about this defeat reflects the Israelite concept of the sovereignty of Yahweh. They have suffered a horrible defeat at the hands of the Philistines, and they can only assume that Yahweh has brought this defeat on them. In a sense, they are right. One of the main themes of the ark narrative is that Israel suffers terribly because of the wicked leadership at Shiloh. The sins of Eli and his sons Hophni and Phinehas have national and military consequences.

Yet the course of action chosen by the elders is misguided. They presume they can reverse the horrible events of that day by treating the ark of the covenant as though it were a magical wand. They can simply wave this ancient and sacred object in front of Yahweh and have instant success before their enemies. But the sins of Eli are not being addressed, and God cannot be manipulated. Presumably, these are the same “elders of Israel” who later unwisely request a king when Samuel grew old (8:4–5).

The reference to “the ark of the covenant of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” is a tacit condemnation of these actions. The elders and people of Israel assume they have lost the battle because Yahweh was not present with them. By fetching the ark, they want to ensure that Yahweh will indeed go with them into battle, and they think the presence of this religious symbol will ensure victory.

What is the ark of the covenant, and why do the elders of Israel think it will bring them luck? Construction of the ark was commissioned at Mount Sinai along with the other furnishings for the tabernacle (Ex. 25:10–22). The ark was simply a wooden rectangular box, less than four feet long, covered with gold. On top were two winged creatures (“cherubim”) facing each other, with their outstretched wings touching at the tips across the top of the box. The ark served a practical function as a depository for certain other sacred objects. Initially it housed only the covenant tablets from Mount Sinai (Ex. 25:16), but eventually it also contained a portion of manna as well as Aaron’s rod (Heb. 9:4).

But the powerful imagery of the ark is due to its understanding in ancient Israel as the visible sign of the presence of Yahweh. As the narrator states in 4:4, Yahweh is “enthroned between the cherubim.”6 The ark serves as Yahweh’s footstool or podium (1 Chron. 28:2; Ps. 99:5; 132:7). Its top is the divine throne itself, and the cherubim flanking the throne may reflect Canaanite royal thrones in which winged sphinxes were used.7 For the Israelite people, this box symbolizes the very presence of Yahweh.

As a symbol of God’s presence, the ark also came to have a significant military function. When Moses led the Israelite nation away from Mount Sinai for the first time, the ark led them through the desert as a means of protection and guidance. Whenever the ark marched before the nation on a new venture, Moses would say, “Rise up, O LORD! May your enemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you” (Num. 10:35). On one particularly memorable occasion, the ark served an important military function as part of Israel’s holy war against the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Yahweh instructed Joshua to give the ark a prominent role in the capture of Jericho (Josh. 6:4, 6–7). The dramatic success on that day surely must have created vivid images of military triumph, which would have been attached to the ark of the covenant.

The elders and people of Israel long for that success and presumably think they can re-create the circumstances of holy war used so effectively in Joshua’s day. They unfortunately view the ark as an infallible talisman or a military palladium that ensures victory.8 In this way, they hope to guarantee Yahweh’s presence in battle and assure success. But what they fail to realize is that “if God willed defeat for his people, a thousand arks would not bring success.”9

The subtle reference in 4:4b is a reminder that this is not holy war: “And Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God.” Far from an intrusive or irrelevant historical note, the narrator reminds the reader that along with the ark come the wicked sons of Eli. As long as this situation persists, Yahweh will not bless Israel’s wars, and the ark will not serve a military role. The presence of such wicked priests (2:22–25) with the ark of the covenant is incompatible with the presence of Yahweh. In Hannah, God found a worthy woman he could afford to bless (ch. 1). In contrast, the nation now appears incapable of bearing God’s blessing; they have in a sense precluded those blessings because of their sins.

The Ark of the Covenant Arrives (4:5–9)

Bridging Contexts

INTERPRETING MILITARY VICTORY. In order to build an interpretive bridge to our context, it is necessary to address the way military victory was interpreted in the Old Testament as a sign of God’s blessing. In Exodus 17, Yahweh blessed Moses and the Israelites with victory over the Amalekites, dramatically authenticated by the elevation of “the rod of God.” As long as Moses held up the rod, with the help of Aaron and Hur, Israel prevailed (17:8–16). Military success was obviously linked to Yahweh’s blessing in the time of Joshua (Josh. 6–8), and King David came to be viewed as the ideal king partially because Yahweh blessed him with military success (2 Sam. 7:1). Many more examples could be given. The gloomy question of the elders of Israel here reflects the agonizing theological dilemma presented by the first defeat at the hands of the Philistines. Where have they gone wrong? What can they do to reverse their military fortunes?

Historically, these events come near the conclusion of Israel’s judges period. There is no king yet in Israel, though the kingmaker, Samuel, is now in preparation. The nation is still under the tribal confederation known from the book of Judges. In that context, we have come to expect certain patterns of behavior concerning warfare (see Judg. 2:10–23). The formula cited there had four ingredients.15 (1) Israel sinned against Yahweh: “The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD.” (2) Yahweh then gave them over into the power of an enemy nation: “The LORD handed them over to raiders who plundered them.” (3) This foreign oppression led the people to repent: “But when the Israelites cried out to the LORD….” (4) Finally, Yahweh sent a judge to deliver them: “The LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hands of these raiders.” This picture is a straightforward interpretation of Israelite history based on Deuteronomy’s retribution theology: Faithfulness to the covenant meant success, but failure to live for God meant defeat.

Thus, early in the book of Judges, the Israelites recognized that military failure was linked to their sin, and they turned to the Lord in repentance. With repentance came military deliverance. But the book of Judges also traces a slow moral deterioration, which is illustrated by the gradual unraveling of this literary cycle. By the time of the Philistine domination in Judges 13, the reader becomes convinced that the system of the judges is not working and Israel is no longer repentant.16 In the final unit of the book (Judg. 17–21), when everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes, decisions are based not on principle but on pragmatism.

In this historical and literary context, the narrative of 1 Samuel 4 contributes to the continuing moral decline. Here the elders of Israel appear bewildered and confused by the Philistine victory. But rather than leading the people in national repentance, they make other arrangements. The ill-fated decision to bring the ark of the covenant to the battle line is apparently an attempt to re-create the holy wars of Moses and Joshua. As such, it is a futile exercise in self-dependence. Military victory is viewed as dependent on the Israelite ability to arouse the wrath and power of Yahweh to inflict defeat on his enemies. This is neither the repentance of the early portions of the book of Judges nor the holy war of Joshua. This is a manipulative attempt to determine the outcome of battle for self-preservation.

The expression “holy war” is not used in the Old Testament. It was introduced by modern scholars to designate certain wars of the Israelites that were unique to their specific cultural and historical circumstances. Such wars were endorsed and directed by Yahweh. He initiated the conflict and ensured its success. Such sacral wars, or “Yahweh wars,” were often preceded by religious rituals, such as sacrifices or even circumcision. The Israelites marched into these wars with reduced numbers and less-effective weaponry. God called on them to take action and participate in some way (shouting, marching, proceeding behind the ark of the covenant), but he was the important participant, fighting on behalf of the nation. The victory was often celebrated in songs of praise to Yahweh. Furthermore, all spoil of such wars was strictly devoted to Yahweh; nothing could be held by the victorious Israelites, as though they had won the prize. Everything and everyone captured was under the “ban” (ḥerem, totally devoted to Yahweh) and had to be destroyed.17 Continued military successes were contingent on continued obedience. The failure at Jericho to devote all the plunder to Yahweh resulted in the defeat at Ai (Josh. 7).

The events in 1 Samuel 4 are related to Israel’s sacred rites of war. This is particularly clear from the reference in verse 5 to the “great shout,” a war cry typical of holy war in the Old Testament (see Josh. 6:5).18 The elders of Israel find an answer to their question of verse 3 (“Why did the LORD bring defeat upon us … ?”) in the ancient traditions of holy war, especially as practiced under the leadership of Joshua. They see the Philistines as God’s enemies and worthy of extermination, just like the people of Jericho. The Israelites see themselves as ensuring victory by imitating what worked in the past.

Unfortunately, the situations are not comparable. Yahweh has not initiated this conflict as in holy wars. While the Israelites are correct in seeking a religious explanation for their defeat, their chosen course of action to secure help from Yahweh is misguided. Instead of remorse and repentance, they attempt to compel Yahweh into providing victory regardless of the unacceptable leadership at Shiloh. This is a shameful attempt at manipulation—an effort to use Yahweh’s sacred presence for purposes of self-preservation, despite the irreligious leadership at Shiloh. Little wonder the Philistine wars of 1 Samuel 4 are doomed to failure.

Contemporary Significance

THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR. So what of the Bible’s understanding of holy war? The twenty-first century opened tragically with extremists in the Middle East calling for jihad or modern holy war.19 After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, some in America spoke of our military response as though it were a holy war, while the country debated whether the United States was waging a “just war” in Afghanistan.20 Does 1 Samuel 4 inform a balanced Christian response to armed conflict, especially in cases in which war seems unavoidable? How should today’s Christians respond to conflict?

It would be easy to use this account of war between the Philistines and the Israelites to discuss Christian reactions to violence in general. But the passage raises questions that are much more specific in application and that involve issues debated for centuries by Christians. The Israelites assumed in verse 3 that God was on their side and they only had to guarantee his presence in the battle to secure victory. Likewise, the Philistines believed the gods were actively involved in both sides of armed conflict. All of this surely stems from the ancient Near Eastern assumption that each nation’s deity was responsible for the outcome of wars. A defeated nation must have had an inferior deity!

How does this relate to modern Christians’ attitudes to armed warfare? How should followers of Christ react to armed conflict? What about warfare between nations in today’s world? What is a Christian response? Christians succeed in avoiding this topic until forced to deal with international conflicts. Most of us give little thought to the question until confronted with hard choices, in which case we are ill-prepared to give a reasoned response. Through the ages, well-meaning, conscientious Christians have responded to war in one of three ways, each of which is incompatible with the others: war as crusade, pacifism, and justifiable war.21

(1) Some believers have considered war as a crusade of good against evil. This was certainly Israel’s understanding of nearly all her wars, and it is not surprising in light of the use of holy war early in her history. But as we see in this episode, war is seldom so simply defined as God’s people versus God’s enemies. Nor is this view of warfare limited to “the Crusades,” in which the church conceived of itself as the representative of God on earth and from this premise drew the tragic and misguided conclusion that there was no greater glory than to fight infidels and heretics for God (A.D. 1096–1272).22 Rather, nearly every war in history has produced soldiers guilty of horrible atrocities against humanity, which are often defended as acceptable behavior due to the wickedness of the enemy.

By definition, crusaders tend to view certain wars as struggles of absolute good against absolute evil, and therefore they seek to pursue absolute and unlimited goals in the struggle. As a result, crusaders seek the unqualified and unrestricted destruction of the wicked enemy. The very “rightness” of their cause leaves no restrictions on the means of the war, and they sometimes advocate slaughter of the enemy as though God has no concern for them.23 Such an approach expects holy war will result in the perfect conditions of a world utopia. This position is obviously not acceptable for Christians, though it has been adopted in various settings in church history.

(2) Christian pacifists believe that war is always wrong, under any conditions. In general, there are two types of Christian pacifists: pragmatic pacifists and witnessing pacifists.24 (a) The pragmatic pacifist argues that nonviolent resistance “works” and, given enough time, will produce better results than war, even on the international level. Pragmatic pacifists often cite as examples of the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent campaign for Indian independence and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s leadership, particularly in the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955–1956.

But pragmatic pacifism has come under considerable criticism in the Christian community. It fails to recognize the depth of human sin, and its practical outcome is a moral preference for tyranny over war. The pragmatic pacifist argues that tyranny will implode whenever it meets nonviolent or passive resistance but is only increased and polarized by a violent response. But experience teaches that unresisted tyranny in fact grows and spreads, threatening to become global. Others have objected that pragmatic pacifists significantly overestimate the effectiveness of nonviolence. But perhaps most telling of all has been the criticism that the supposed nonresistance commanded in the New Testament is quite different from nonviolent resistance. The principle in Matthew 5:39, “Do not resist one who is evil,” appears to be an ethic that seeks no success in power struggles, while the pragmatic pacifist claims to win the power struggle by nonviolent means.25

(b) The witnessing pacifist, by contrast, contends that war is always immoral regardless of whether it produces better consequences. War is simply incompatible with Christian discipleship, and a refusal to participate in violence is the only proper Christian witness.26 Agreeing that nonviolence often produces superior results, nonetheless, the witnessing pacifist acknowledges this may not always be the case. The desired outcome, however, is not power or success but obedience to Christ’s law of love.27

All Christians everywhere should appreciate the emphasis of the witnessing pacifists on a radical commitment to Jesus and Christian discipleship. However, Christians are not agreed on the definition of Christian love at this point. If love is primarily defined as covenant faithfulness to our neighbors, many believe there are times when war is the only answer to tyranny. Moreover, it is possible to argue that a refusal to intervene on behalf of those suffering under tyrannical oppression means Christians bear responsibility for the evil inflicted on innocent victims. Though I believe the witnessing pacifist position is inadequate, I think we should always take seriously the arguments and recognize differences in the way various members of the church define love and Christian responsibility.

(3) The third approach to war is the just-war tradition. Since the end of Roman persecution of Christians in the early fourth century A.D., many Christians began to believe that the use of force was justifiable for the state under certain conditions. Ambrose and Augustine in the late fourth and early fifth centuries formulated the first Christian definitions of justifiable war.28 Much of modern Christian thinking is still dependent on their early formulations. During most of modern history, just-war thinking received less attention until the years leading up to and including the Second World War. With the rise of technological advancements in warfare during the second half of the twentieth century, this question has taken on new importance for Christians, who are responsible to formulate in advance our beliefs on the issue in an effort to have an impact on our society and participate in forming policy.

Just-war doctrine is based on the covenant relationship between God and his creation, which emphasizes the value of all human life.29 Further, this position admits the prevalence of evil and the persistence of human conflict in the world. Particularly, the abusive and unjust oppression of poorer or weaker neighbors, whether individually inflicted or nationally, calls for responsible Christian reactions. The just-war position teaches that sometimes the Christian’s respect for human life calls for the use of force to protect and defend victims from their attackers. But motivation is determinative, as Augustine argued. Such action must not arise out of selfish desire but must be the result of desire to help other people. It is not a work of love, just-war thinkers argue, to turn the cheek of another person so they may be struck a second time.

Over the years, Christian just-war thinkers have developed a set of criteria to help determine when armed conflict is justifiable and when it is not. Though there are various lists of criteria, in general they include several of the following principles.30 Primary among these criteria is the need to establish “just cause,” in that an egregious wrong has been committed or is about to be committed. Usually this involves an unjust attack on a group of innocent or helpless victims, rights that have been revoked unjustly, or the annulment of a just political order. Also, it must be clear that armed intervention is the last resort to resolution, after every peaceful alternative has been eliminated. Other criteria include “legitimate authority” (“Who should decide?”), a clear “declaration” of war aims, and “proportionality” (the idea that the evil effects of war should not exceed the evil to be prevented by going to war). Others sometimes mentioned are reasonable chance of success and right intention. Though it is not necessary that every criterion be present before armed conflict is justified, some combination of these will, it is hoped, avoid the use of war in a way that just-war thinkers would deem unchristian.

The Old Testament has often been abused in the debates on pacifism versus just war. We should remember that Israelite holy war was a unique, unrepeatable phenomenon. Modern believers are never presented with situations that compare to Israel’s holy wars. It is illegitimate for North American Christians to appeal to the Old Testament for support of any armed conflict. Conversely, it is not legitimate to use Old Testament narrative material to illustrate the unchristian practice of crusading against God’s enemies. The Old Testament presents multifaceted perspectives on war, and the assemblage of cultural and historical conditions surrounding most of those wars are in no way related to most modern conflicts.

This episode between Israel and the Philistines in 1 Samuel 4 presents us with a picture of Israelites who refused to repent of sin and acknowledge national responsibility for guilt. In this case, warfare was unavoidable, and it would have been an opportunity for repentance and dependence on God for deliverance. This had been the experience of the Israelites throughout the judges period. Armed conflict had given rise to occasions of tribal (and sometimes even national) sorrow for sin and turning to God. But in this episode, military defeat broke their presumption. They simply assumed they were in the right, and they failed to consult God (note again the absence of Samuel here). They trusted the means of their covenant relationship (the ark of the covenant) rather than the God of that relationship. They attempted to use holy-war shortcuts in order to manipulate God, which is another symptom of their spiritual decay. What is missing in all of this is genuine repentance (see 7:2–4).

Similarly in modern America, Christians must beware of the presumption that “God is on our side.”31 Such sentiment implies we are a righteous nation, which regularly recognizes guilt and sin and has repented and turned to God. The Allied forces during the Second World War were, I believe, certainly justified in their armed resistance of the Axis nations. The heroic accolades being heaped on the World War II generation during the closing decades of the twentieth century were, I believe, justified, even overdue. Their heroic efforts were required to defeat Nazism and Fascism.

But America’s past in successfully engaging in justified wars is no guarantee that she is right in all her military actions, any more so than Israel could presume that Yahweh was going to provide victory against the Philistines. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of individual Christians to hold the government responsible for any actions taken on behalf of the nation. In every case, occasions of armed conflict should also be occasions of repentance and turning to God for forgiveness for sin and injustice in our own society. This was ultimately Israel’s mistake, and it certainly serves as a warning for believers living in modern America.

Moreover, this passage has a message for more general kinds of conflict involving Christians, not just armed military warfare among nations. Anytime someone confronts us or attacks our character, we should humbly seek to determine whether we have acted presumptuously or failed to seek God’s will. The Israelites failed to acknowledge their sin and guilt and acted as though God were obligated to favor them in their war with the Philistines.

Sometimes Christians assume an arrogant posture of righteousness in the face of opposition. But we must remember that Christ seeks followers who humbly acknowledge that we have no righteousness apart from our relationship with him. Living for Jesus does not mean we are always right or that we will always “win.” Sometimes we will need correction and the discipline provided by others. Unlike the Israelites in this passage, we must never assume that God owes us something or that we can control the outcome of personal conflict by appealing to our relationship with God. After all, our life with God is all of grace and depends not one bit on our own merit.

Original Meaning

The Ark of the Covenant Arrives (4:5–9)

LIKE THE IMPRESSIVE victory at Jericho, the Israelites hope a mighty war cry combined with the presence of the ark of the covenant will do the trick (Josh. 6:5, 20). Their earth-shattering outcry alarms the Philistines, who have heard of the Israelite deity and what he did to the Egyptians (1 Sam. 4:8). Ironically, the Philistines prove to be more adept at interpreting Israelite history than the Israelites themselves. While Israel draws the wrong conclusion from Joshua’s victory at Jericho, the uncircumcised Philistines see the implications of Moses’ plagues and the miraculous deliverance from Egypt. They may be limited by pagan polytheism, but the Philistines understand that Israel’s God is more powerful than anything they have ever experienced. Note 4:7: “We’re in trouble! Nothing like this has happened before.” Unfortunately, Israel has become negligent in its worship of this miracle-working God. The sins of Shiloh will not be overcome by mimicking the successes of yesteryear.

Strangely, the fear and alarm caused by the Israelite war cry arouses the Philistines to fight even harder (4:9). Whereas Joshua’s war cry caused the walls of Jericho to fall down immediately (Josh. 6:20), the Israelite battle cry here has the effect of strengthening the enemy’s resolve. Rather than securing victory, Israel’s attempt to re-create ancient holy war ensures their defeat. Furthermore, in genuine holy war, “terror” precedes the Israelite army to soften the enemy and to make victory possible (Deut. 11:25). Here, however, when the Israelites try to terrorize the Philistines in their own strength, their contrived dread has the reverse effect, making it possible for the enemy to muster the necessary strength for battle (1 Sam. 4:9).

The Capture of the Ark (4:10–11)