Why did Samuel initially think Eliab was the chosen one in 1 Samuel 16:6? Historical Setting and Narrative Flow When Saul proved unfaithful (1 Samuel 15), the LORD sent Samuel to Bethlehem to anoint Saul’s successor. Jesse’s sons were paraded before the prophet (1 Samuel 16:5 – 10). The eldest, Eliab, entered first. Scripture records: “When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and said, ‘Surely here before the LORD is His anointed.’ ” (1 Samuel 16:6). Primogeniture and Cultural Expectation In the Ancient Near East the firstborn ordinarily inherited authority, land, and family leadership (cf. Deuteronomy 21:17). From Abraham’s era forward, social custom conditioned observers to expect the eldest to receive both temporal and spiritual privilege. Samuel, raised within that same culture, instinctively associated the position of king with the firstborn son. The Shadow of Saul’s Appearance Just before Saul’s coronation the text notes, “Saul was … taller than any of the people from his shoulders up” (1 Samuel 9:2). That description, reinforced by Israel’s earlier demand for “a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5), created a template: a visually imposing figure equals kingly suitability. Eliab apparently matched that template. Josephus (Antiquities 6.8.1) even preserves the tradition that Jesse’s eldest had a striking physique. Samuel’s Immediate Human Heuristic Behavioral research confirms that humans form leadership judgments in milliseconds based on height, symmetry, and perceived age.ⁱ Samuel’s reaction illustrates this universal heuristic: impressive stature, eldest status, confident bearing—variables that normally predict civil or military leadership—triggered the conclusion, “Surely … the LORD’s anointed.” Divine Correction: Heart over Height “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not see as man does. For man sees the outward appearance, but the LORD sees the heart’ ” (1 Samuel 16:7). Yahweh overturned two assumptions: external impressiveness and birth order. God’s sovereign choice centered on internal disposition—David’s faith, humility, and covenant loyalty (Psalm 78:70-72). Canonical Pattern of Reversals • Isaac over Ishmael (Genesis 17:19) • Jacob over Esau (Genesis 25:23) • Joseph over Reuben (Genesis 49:3-4, 22-26) • Moses over Aaron in prophetic authority (Exodus 4:14-16) By consistently bypassing cultural firstborn expectations, God highlights grace, not pedigree, as the basis of election. Archaeological Parallels Relief art from contemporary Iron Age Near-Eastern palaces (e.g., the Tel Fakhariyah statue) depicts rulers as notably taller than attendants—visual propaganda that equated height with authority. Such cultural backdrops help explain why Samuel’s eyes quickly settled on Eliab. Theological Implications 1. Divine sovereignty overrides social convention. 2. Spiritual qualification rests on character formed by God, not on natural assets. 3. Prophetic discernment requires continual reliance on divine revelation, not prior success or intuition. Psychological and Pastoral Applications • Guard against “halo effect” judgments in hiring, ministry placement, or personal relationships (James 2:1-4). • Cultivate prayerful discernment—“We regard no one according to the flesh” (2 Corinthians 5:16). • Encourage marginalized believers: God often selects the overlooked (1 Corinthians 1:26-29). Cross-References for Study Luke 16:15; Proverbs 31:30; Jeremiah 17:10; Acts 13:22. Answer in Brief Samuel initially thought Eliab was the chosen one because cultural norms of primogeniture, the recent model of Saul’s towering appearance, and innate human bias led him to equate visible stature with divine selection. God immediately corrected that perception, revealing that His choice is governed by the unseen condition of the heart, thereby teaching Israel—and us—to prize spiritual character above outward impressiveness. –––––––– ⁱ J. C. Coates et al., “Height, Dominance, and Leader Selection,” Evolutionary Psychology 12 (2014). ² P. Kyle McCarter, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament (Fortress, 1986), pp. 46-48. |
    |