Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 15:1
Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee [to be] king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
Ch. 1Sa 15:1-9. Saul’s commission to destroy Amalek
1. Samuel also said ] And Samuel said. How long after the repulse of the Philistines this happened, we are not told. Some years at least must be allowed for the evident development of that wilfulness which was Saul’s ruin.
The Lord sent me ] Me did Jehovah send. The pronoun stands emphatically at the head of the sentence. The prophet appeals to his former commission to anoint Saul as accrediting him to be God’s messenger on the present occasion. “The note of special warning” with which he prefaces the command indicates that he felt that “the discipline of Saul’s life was gathering itself up into a special trial,” and that this would be “a crisis in that life-history, with which by God’s own hand his own had been so strangely intertwined.” Wilberforce’s Heroes of Hebrew History, p. 219.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The absence of all chronology or note of time is remarkable.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XV
Samuel sends Saul to destroy the Amalekites, and all their
substance, 1-3.
Saul collects an immense army and comes against their city,
4, 5.
He desires the Kenites to remove from among the Amalekites, 6.
He smites the Amalekites, and takes their king, Agag, prisoner,
and saves the best of the spoil, 7-9.
The Lord is displeased, and sends Samuel to reprove him, 10, 11.
The conversation between Samuel and Saul, in which the latter
endeavours to justify his conduct, 12-23.
He is convinced that he has done wrong, and asks pardon, 24-31.
Samuel causes Agag to be slain; for which he assigns the
reasons, 32-35.
NOTES ON CHAP. XV
Verse 1. The Lord sent me to anoint thee] This gave him a right to say what immediately follows.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Lord made thee king, and therefore thou art highly obliged to serve and obey him. Thou hast committed one error already, for which God hath severely rebuked and threatened; now therefore make amends for thy former error, and regain Gods favour by thy exact obedience to what he now commands.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Samuel also said unto Saul, TheLord sent me to anoint thee . . .: now therefore hearken thou unto .. . the LordSeveral years had been passed in successfulmilitary operations against troublesome neighbors. During these Saulhad been left to act in a great measure at his own discretion as anindependent prince. Now a second test is proposed of his possessingthe character of a theocratic monarch in Israel; and in announcingthe duty required of him, Samuel brought before him his officialstation as the Lord’s vicegerent, and the peculiar obligation underwhich he was laid to act in that capacity. He had formerly donewrong, for which a severe rebuke and threatening were administered tohim (1Sa 13:13; 1Sa 13:14).Now an opportunity was afforded him of retrieving that error by anexact obedience to the divine command.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Samuel also said unto Saul,…. When and where he said to him what follows, it is not easy to determine, perhaps at Gilgal, where they after met again:
the Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel; that is, he gave him orders to anoint him king of Israel, otherwise Saul was in providence sent to Samuel to be anointed, and not Samuel to Saul:
now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord; for so great a favour, and such high honour he had conferred on him, laid him under great obligation to obey the commands of the Lord; and whereas he had been deficient in one instance before, for which he had been reproved, he suggests, that now he should take care to observe and do, particularly and punctually, what should be enjoined him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The account of the war against the Amalekites is a very condensed one, and is restricted to a description of the conduct of Saul on that occasion. Without mentioning either the time or the immediate occasion of the war, the narrative commences with the command of God which Samuel solemnly communicated to Saul, to go and exterminate that people. Samuel commenced with the words, “ Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to be king over His people, over Israel,” in order to show to Saul the obligation which rested upon him to receive his commission as coming from God, and to proceed at once to fulfil it. The allusion to the anointing points back not to 1Sa 11:15, but to 1Sa 10:1.
1Sa 15:2 “ Thus saith the Lord of Zebaoth, I have looked upon what Amalek did to Israel, that it placed itself in his way when he came up out of Egypt ” (Exo 17:8). Samuel merely mentions this first outbreak of hostility on the part of Amalek towards the people of Israel, because in this the same disposition was already manifested which now made the people ripe for the judgment of extermination (vid., Exo 17:14). The hostility which they had now displayed, according to 1Sa 15:33, there was no necessity for the prophet to mention particularly, since it was well known to Saul and all Israel. When God looks upon a sin, directs His glance towards it, He must punish it according to His own holiness. This points at the very outset to the punishment about to be proclaimed.
1Sa 15:3 Saul is to smite and ban everything belonging to it without reserve, i.e., to put to death both man and beast. The last clause is only an explanation and exemplification of . “ From man to woman,” etc., i.e., men and women, children and sucklings, etc.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Amalekites Destroyed. | B. C. 1065. |
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. 6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
Here, I. Samuel, in God’s name, solemnly requires Saul to be obedient to the command of God, and plainly intimates that he was now about to put him upon a trial, in one particular instance, whether he would be obedient or no, v. 1. And the making of this so expressly the trial of his obedience did very much aggravate his disobedience. 1. He reminds him of what God had done for him: “The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be a king. God gave thee thy power, and therefore he expects thou shouldst use thy power for him. He put honour upon thee, and now thou must study how to do him honour. He made thee king over Israel, and now thou must plead Israel’s cause and avenge their quarrels. Thou art advanced to command Israel, but know that thou art a subject to the God of Israel and must be commanded by him.” Men’s preferment, instead of releasing them from their obedience to God, obliges them so much the more to it. Samuel had himself been employed to anoint Saul, and therefore was the fitter to be send with these orders to him. 2. He tells him, in general, that, in consideration of this, whatever God commanded him to do he was bound to do it: Now therefore hearken to the voice of the Lord. Note, God’s favours to us lay strong obligations upon us to be obedient to him. This we must render, Ps. cxvi. 12.
II. He appoints him a particular piece of service, in which he must now show his obedience to God more than in any thing he had done yet. Samuel premises God’s authority to the command: Thus says the Lord of hosts, the Lord of all hosts, of Israel’s hosts. He also gives him a reason for the command, that the severity he must use might not seem hard: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, v. 2. God had an ancient quarrel with the Amalekites, for the injuries they did to his people Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. We have the story, Exod. xvii. 8, c., and the crime is aggravated, Deut. xxv. 18. He basely smote the hindmost of them, and feared not God. God then swore that he would have war with Amalek from generation to generation, and that in process of time he would utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek this is the work that Saul is now appointed to do (v. 3): “Go and smite Amalek. Israel is now strong, and the measure of the iniquity of Amalek is now full; now go and make a full riddance of that devoted nation.” He is expressly commanded to kill and slay all before him, man and woman, infant and suckling, and not spare them out of pity; also ox and sheep, camel and ass, and not spare them out of covetousness. Note, 1. Injuries done to God’s Israel will certainly be reckoned for sooner or later, especially the opposition given them when they are coming out of Egypt. 2. God often bears long with those that are marked for ruin. The sentence passed is not executed speedily. 3. Though he bear long, he will not bear always. The year of recompence for the controversy of Israel will come at last. Though divine justice strikes slowly it strikes surely. 4. The longer judgment is delayed many times the more severe it is when it comes. 5. God chooses out instruments to do his work that are fittest for it. This was bloody work, and therefore Saul who was a rough and severe man must do it.
III. Saul hereupon musters his forces, and makes a descent upon the country of Amalek. It was an immense army that he brought into the field (v. 4): 200,000 footmen. When he came to engage the Philistines, and the success was hazardous, he had but 600 attending him, ch. xiii. 15. But now that he was to attack the Amalekites by express order from heaven, in which he was sure of victory, he had thousands at his call. But, whatever it was at other times, it was not now for the honour of Judah that their forces were numbered by themselves, for their quota was scandalously short (whatever was the reason), but a twentieth part of the whole, for they were by 10,000, when the other ten tribes (for I except Levi) brought into the field 200,000. The day of Judah’s honour drew near, but had not yet come. Saul numbered them in Telaim, which signifies lambs. He numbered then like lambs (so the vulgar Latin), numbered them by the paschal lambs (so the Chaldee), allowing ten to a lamb, a way of numbering used by the Jews in the later times of their nation. Saul drew all his forces to the city of Amalek, that city that was their metropolis (v. 5), that he might provoke them to give him battle.
IV. He gave friendly advice to the Kenites to separate themselves from the Amalekites among whom they dwelt, while this execution was in doing, v. 6. Herein he did prudently and piously, and, it is probable, according to the direction Samuel gave him. The Kenites were of the family and kindred of Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law, a people that dwelt in tents, which made it easy for them, upon every occasion, to remove to other lands not appropriated. Many of them, at this time, dwelt among the Amalekites, where, though they dwelt in tents, they were fortified by nature, for they put their nest in a rock, being hardy people that could live any where, and affected fastnesses, Num. xxiv. 21. Balaam had foretold that they should be wasted, Num. xxiv. 22. However, Saul must not waste them. But, 1. He acknowledges the kindness of their ancestors to Israel, when they came out of Egypt. Jethro and his family had been very helpful and serviceable to them in their passage through the wilderness, had been to them instead of eyes, and this is remembered to their posterity many ages after. Thus a good man leaves the divine blessing for an inheritance to his children’s children; those that come after us may be reaping the benefit of our good works when we are in our graves. God is not unrighteous to forget the kindnesses shown to his people; but they shall be remembered another day, at furthest in the great day, and recompensed in the resurrection of the just. I was hungry, and you gave me meat. God’s remembering the kindness of the Kenites’ ancestors in favour to them, at the same time when he was punishing the injuries done by the ancestors of the Amalekites, helped to clear the righteousness of God in that dispensation. If he entail favours, why may he not entail frowns? He espouses his people’s cause, so as to bless those that bless them; and therefore so as to curse those that curse them,Num 24:9; Gen 12:3. They cannot themselves requite the kindnesses nor avenge the injuries done them, but God will do both. 2. He desires them to remove their tents from among the Amalekites: Go, depart, get you down from among them. When destroying judgments are abroad God will take care to separate between the precious and the vile, and to hide the meek of the earth in the day of his anger. It is dangerous being found in the company of God’s enemies, and it is our duty and interest to come out from among them, lest we share in their sins and plagues, Rev. xviii. 4. The Jews have a saying, Woe to the wicked man and woe to his neighbour.
V. Saul prevailed against the Amalekites, for it was rather an execution of condemned malefactors than a war with contending enemies. The issue could not be dubious when the cause was just and the call so clear: He smote them (v. 7), utterly destroyed them, v. 8. Now they paid dearly for the sin of their ancestors. God sometimes lays up iniquity for the children. They were idolaters, and were guilty of many other sins, for which they deserved to fall under the wrath of God; yet, when God would reckon with them, he fastened upon the sin of their ancestors in abusing his Israel as the ground of his quarrel. Lord, How unsearchable are thy judgments, yet how incontestable is thy righteousness!
VI. Yet he did his work by halves, v. 9. 1. He spared Agag, because he was a king like himself, and perhaps in hope to get a great ransom for him. 2. He spared the best of the cattle, and destroyed only the refuse, that was good for little. Many of the people, we may suppose, made their escape, and took their effects with them into other countries, and therefore we read of Amalekites after this; but that could not be helped. It was Saul’s fault that he did not destroy such as came to his hands and were in his power. That which was now destroyed was in effect sacrificed to the justice of God, as the God to whom vengeance belongeth; and for Saul to think the torn and the sick, the lame and the lean, good enough for that, while he reserved for his own fields and his own table the firstlings and the fat, was really to honour himself more than God.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
First Samuel – Chapter 15
Saul’s Amalekite Victory, vs. 1-9
At what point of Saul’s reign the expedition against the Amalekites occurred is uncertain. It appears, however, to have been at some later time than his earliest reign and the significant war with the Philistines. It is interesting that Samuel made a pointed reference to the Lord’s attitude toward Amalek and His determination to exterminate them in giving the task to Saul. It was the Lord who had Samuel anoint Saul to be king over Israel, therefore Saul should hear what the Lord has for him to do. “To hearken” implies a careful attendance to God’s command and a diligence to perform it.
The incident which the Lord calls to mind with reference to Amalek is recorded in Exo 17:8-16. Israel had barely arrived in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. They had no water, and the Lord had given them water from the stricken rock (Exo 17:1-7). In speaking to Saul the Lord tells him that Amalek “laid in wait” for Israel, evidently with the purpose of destroying them. It would seem that they had a special animosity against the Lord. (They were descendants of rebellious Esau, Gen 36:12.) They also appear to have thought to take the water which the Lord had given Israel there in the valley of Rephidim.
There is an analogy in Amalek’s desire to take the water from the rock by their own power and force. It belonged only to those who were the Lord’s people. It is like those today who attempt to procure everlasting life by their own strength, without taking it as the gift of God. These things caused the Lord to proclaim perpetual war with Amalek. This war continues in the spiritual realm with those who would obtain salvation by works.
God commanded the total destruction of Amalek. This illustrates the utter condemnation and judgment of sin. Though it does not destroy the soul of the innocent it does affect their lives. Such destruction is a preview of the judgment in the end of time.
Saul gathered his army at Telaim, a town in the southern border of Judah. Again the men of Judah receive special notice. They numbered ten thousand in addition to two hundred thousand from the other tribes. When Saul’s army arrived in Amalek he sent warning to the Kenites, who were friendly to Israel, to remove themselves from the area, and they did. The Kenites were a Midianite people, related to Moses’ wife’s people (see Jdg 4:11).
The destruction by Saul’s army stretched from Havilah (the area southeast of the trans-Jordanic tribes of Israel toward Arabia) to Shur (on the approach to Egypt in the west). The people were destroyed, except that Saul and the people kept the king, Agag, as a prize of war and also the best and finest of the cattle and sheep. The rest they utterly destroyed.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
Samuel also said to Saul. This verse is not to be connected chronologically with chap. 12, but continues the narrative of chaps. 13 and 14. The solemn reminder of Sauls royal anointing, and of Samuels Divine mission to that end, refers not to 1Sa. 11:15, but to 1Sa. 9:15; 1Sa. 10:1, It points to the fact that the following commission is a Divine command communicated by the appointed organ, the prophet of God, and that the bearer of the royal office has here to perform a theocratic mission with unconditional obedience. The me stands first (such is the order of the Hebrew) in order to give prominence to the official authority, as bearer of which Samuel must have felt obliged by Sauls past conduct to assert himself over against him. (Erdmann.) Several years had been passed in unsuccessful military operations against troublesome neighbours, and during these years Saul had been left to act in a great measure at his own discretion as an independent prince. Now a new test is proposed of his possessing the character of a theocratic monarch in Israel; and in announcing the duty required of him, Samuel brought before him his official station as the Lords vicegerent, and the peculiar obligation under which he was laid to act in that capacity. He had formerly done wrong, for which a severe rebuke and threatening were administered to him. Now an opportunity was afforded him of retrieving that error. (Jamieson.)
1Sa. 15:2. I remember. Bather, I have looked upon (Keil), or I have considered, or noted. (Erdmann.) Amalek. The Amalekites were a wild, warlike, desert-people, dwelling south and south-west of Judea, in Arabia Petrea, descended from the same ancestor as the Edomites, and took their name from Esaus grandson Amalek (Gen. 36:12-16; 1Ch. 1:36). Gods command goes back to their first hostilities (Exodus 17), which were often afterwards repeated in their alliance with the Canaanites (Num. 14:40 s.q.), with the Moabites (Jdg. 3:13), and with the Midianites (Jdg. 7:12), the Amalekites, according to 1Sa. 15:33, having newly made an inroad, with robbery and murder, into the Israelitish territory. (Erdmann.)
1Sa. 15:3. Utterly destroy. Literally, put everything under the ban. The ban, of which we have here a notable instance, was an old custom, existing probably before Moses, but formulated, regulated, and extended by him. In its simplest form it was the devotion to God of any object, living or dead. When an Israelite or the whole congregation wished to devote to God anythingman, beast, or fieldwhether for the honour of God or to get rid of an injurious or accursed thing, it was brought and offered to the priest, and could not then be redeemed (Lev. 27:28); if living, it must be put to death. A deep consciousness of mans sin and Gods holiness underlay this law. The wicked thing, contrary to the spiritual theocratic life of Gods people, must be removed, must be committed to him who was ruler and judge of Gods people. And so the custom had a breadth of use as well as of meaning which it never had in other ancient nations. To spare the devoted thing was a grave offence, calling down the vengeance of God. In later times the ban was, doubtless under prophetic direction, softened, and in the New Testament times the infliction of death had quite ceased. (Translator of Langes Commentary.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.1Sa. 15:1-3
THE SENTENCE AGAINST AMALEK
I. National sins may bring national retribution long after the individuals who committed the sins have left the world. Both history and revelation teach us that God deals with nations as a whole as well as with men individually, and that the sin of one generation may bring penalty upon another. If a man deals a murderous blow to another and is not brought to justice until long after the crime has been committed, the judge will not overlook the crime because it was not committed yesterday, or a few days or weeks agohowever long the transgressor may go unpunished the penalty of the transgression hangs over him until he has undergone the punishment which it deserves. The words of God in this chapter show that he proceeds on the same principle in relation to nations. Many ages had passed away since Amalek laid wait for Israel in the way, when he came up out of Egypt, and the men who were guilty of the deed had long since left the earth. Yet the mention of it here shows that the sentence here passed upon the nation had special reference to that national sin which had been committed so long ago. At the same time we must remember that the Amalekites of the time of Saul were possessed by the same spirit of hatred to Israel as their forefathers werealthough no reference is here made to their later attacks upon the Hebrew people, we know from other passages (See critical Notes) that the Amalekites now were no less cruel and murderous in disposition than their forefathers in the days of Moses. If a man was brought to the bar of a human judge for a crime committed in his youth, and it was proven that he has since lived for years the life of a peaceable citizen, it might seem hard to make him now suffer for a deed done so long ago, but if during the intervening years he had been adding crime to crime he will deserve to have all his misdeeds taken into account when the day of reckoning comes. So it was with Amalek at this time. The present character of the nation was such that it fully deserved the sentence here passed upon it even if the ancient sin had not been remembered by God. When our Lord pronounced His terrible woe upon the Jewish nation of His day (Luk. 11:47-52), and foretold that the blood of all the prophets would be required of that generation, He expressly declares that this terrible retribution would fall upon them because they allowed the deeds of their fathers,in other words, because they were animated by the same spirit and were guilty of the same sins. It was doubtless the same in the case of the Amalekites.
II. The authority from which all national retribution proceeds. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts. now go and smite Amalek. Whoever or whatever may be the instrumental cause of national judgment for national sin, God is the original and first cause. It is He who sets his servants over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant (Jer. 1:10). The executioners of His will may be entirely unconscious that they are carrying out the designs of a Supreme Ruler of the universe in following the devices of their own hearts, but they are doing it as really as if they were knowingly obeying a Divine command. Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (Amo. 3:6). When we hear that a monarch or a government has declared war against a nation, we judge of the righteousness or unrighteousness of the act from what we know of the character of the man or the number of men who are responsible for it. If we know them to be men who are lovers of humanityif we know that they are pre-eminently just and benevolent, and incapable of being actuated by any unworthy motives, we shall conclude that they have strong and sufficient reasons for the step, and that although it must bring much sorrow and suffering, they believe that it will prevent more misery than it occasions. In this light we ought to look at all the wars which were commanded or sanctioned by Divine authority in the early ages of the world. If a human monarch or human government had given such a command as we here find given to Saul, we should be bound to look at the command through what we knew of his character and disposition, and if we knew him to be a man of integrity and benevolence to conclude that he had good ground for taking such a step. We cannot do less when we read such a sentence as that here issued against Amalek. We know that God loves the creatures whom He has madethat He is a God of peace, and that He desires peace on earth. If the men of the ancient world could rest assured that the Judge of all the earth would and could do nothing but right (Gen. 18:25), he who possesses the New Testament record ought not to have the shadow of a doubt that all His dealings with men have at all times been actuated by the purest love and the highest wisdom; and that however stern and terrible some of them seem to us, they are in reality dispensations of mercy. In looking at the acts of the most perfect of human kind, we could not be certain of the perfect purity and wisdom of them all; but the same inspired Book which records these acts of retributive justice reveals to us so much of the Divine character as to make it certain that the final verdict of all His creatures will beJust and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints (Rev. 15:3).
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
There are some particular precepts in Scripture given to particular persons, requiring actions which would be immoral and vicious were it not for such precepts. But it is easy to see that all these are of such a kind as that the precept changes the whole nature of the case, and of the actions, and both constitutes and shows that not to be unjust or immoral which, prior to the precept, must have appeared and really have been so; which may well be, since none of these precepts are contrary to immutable morality. If it were commanded to cultivate the principles, and act from the spirit of treachery, ingratitude, cruelty, the command would not alter the nature of the case or of the action in any of these instances. But it is quite otherwise in precepts which require only the doing an external action: for instance, taking away the property or life of any. For men have no right to either life or property, but what arises solely from the grant of God; when this grant is revoked, they cease to have any right at all in either; and when this revocation is made known, as surely it is possible it may be, it must cease to be unjust to deprive them of either.Bp. Butler.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
The Lords Rejection of Saul, 1Sa. 15:1-35.
Saul Sent Against the Amalekites. 1Sa. 15:1-6
Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.
2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt, So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
1.
Why did Samuel remind Saul that he had anointed him 1Sa. 15:1
Samuel wanted Saul to place current events in the proper perspective. Saul had seemingly lost his way. He had presumed to offer a sacrifice when he had no right to serve as a priest. He had grown fainthearted in battle and placed a useless curse on his people. Samuel must have felt that he could not help Saul unless Saul were to return to his former humble self. By remembering his origins, Saul might be able to understand the error of a proud mans way.
2.
How could the Amalekites be doomed to destruction? 1Sa. 15:2
There was a quarrel that Israel had with the people of the Amalekites. It was this quarrel that was to be avenged and since the Amalekites were completely reprobate, they were appointed of God to utter destruction. The Kenites who were ordered out were kinsmen of Moses wife. They had come along with Judah into Canaan; but when the land was allotted to the children of Israel, the Kenites had returned to the desert. We are unable to locate Havilah and Shur with certainty, but they were quite evidently the two extremities of the country of the Amalekites. God had predicted the fall of Amalek when they first attacked Israel in the days of Moses (Exo. 17:14).
3.
Was God cruel in ordering the slaughter of all? 1Sa. 15:3
The people of Amalek had been given more than 400 years in which to repent of their opposition to Gods people. They had attacked Israel when Israel first came out of Egypt, around 1447 B.C. While Israel wandered forty years in the wilderness, Amalek made no effort to make amends for her senseless attack. As Israel had settled in the promised land, there were still no overtures from Amalek. In fact her opposition to Israel had been constant. While the judges led Israel through a three-hundred-year period, Amalek still made no attempts to live at peace with Gods people. God had finally called a halt to the rebellious ways of the Amalekites. It is an eternal principle that any nation who falls to the depths in which Amalek was wallowing must perish before a people who are roused by a vision of a higher destiny. To allow even the women to continue in such a life would not be mercy. Infants growing up in such a society would have no hope beyond that of a reprobate. God was attempting to work an act of mercy through the sword of Saul.
4.
Where was Telaim? 1Sa. 15:4
Telaim comes from a Hebrew word which means, young lambs. A form very close to this is a word Telen. Telen is a town in the southern border of Judah (Joshua 16:24). It lay between Ziph and Bealoth. The gathering of Sauls army at this point is the only important event which transpired there according to Bible history. Once again the men of Israel were separated from the men of Judah. The proportion was still ten to one, with Judah making up one-tenth of the number of soldiers in Israel.
5.
What kindness had the Canaanites shown Israel? 1Sa. 15:6
Hobab was a Canaanite. He is known as Moses brother-in-law. As the people of Israel departed from Mt. Sinai, Moses invited his brother-in-law to accompany Israel through the wilderness. He promised Hobab that they would share their blessings with him and his people. At first Hobab declined to go along with them, but as Moses insisted he must have yielded and served as a scout for the hosts of Israel (Num. 10:29-32). No doubt this is the kindness which the Canaanites showed Israel in the wilderness as mentioned here,
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1Sa. 15:1-3) Samuel also said unto Saul . . .The compiler of the history, selecting, no doubt, from ancient state records, chose to illustrate the story of the reign and rejection of Saul by certain memorable incidents as good examples of the kings general life and conduct. The incidents were also selected to show the rapid development of the power and resources of Israel at this period.
The sacred war with Amalek is thus introduced without any note of time.
The Lord sent me to anoint thee.The account of the Amalekite war is prefaced by the solemn words used by the seer when he came to announce the Eternals will to Saul. They are quoted to show that the war was enjoined upon Israel in a general official way by the accredited prophet-messenger of the Most High.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SAUL’S WAR WITH AMALEK, 1Sa 15:1-9.
Jehovah deigns to give Saul’s obedience one more test. He has already warned him that, because of disobedience, his kingdom shall not be established in his posterity, (1Sa 13:14😉 but ere he utters the final oracle of rejection he affords him one more trial. Occasion for this is found in the war with the Amalekites, those ancient enemies whose wanton hostility to the chosen people had, even in the days of Moses, drawn down upon them the curse of God. See Exo 17:8-16; Deu 25:17-19.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. The Lord sent me to anoint thee The same Divine authority that made him king now commissions him to destroy the fierce, wicked Amalekites. 1Sa 14:48, suggests that this war on Amalek was not without fresh provocation. Those spoilers had probably made a predatory incursion into the southern borders, like that mentioned 1Sa 30:1.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
YHWH Commands His Anointed To Slay The Amalekites As A Divine Judgment On Them ( 1Sa 15:1-3 ).
It is important to recognise in this passage that Saul is specifically instructed as ‘the anointed of YHWH’ and is called on to act as His instrument of justice on the Amalekites. He is to ‘devote’ the Amalekites and all their possessions to YHWH. This involved total annihilation and destruction of something which all recognised that YHWH had specifically made His own. It was all thus sacred to Him and non-negotiable. No exception was allowed. We can compare the story of Achan who also sought to keep for himself what had been devoted to YHWH and was visited with swift judgment (Joshua 7).
1Sa 15:1
‘ And Samuel said to Saul, “YHWH sent me to anoint you to be king over his people, over Israel, now therefore listen to the voice of the words of YHWH,” ’
Samuel now comes to Saul emphasising that he is the anointed of YHWH. That means that he is dedicated to doing YHWH’s will. In view of that he is now to listen to the words of YHWH which will instruct him in what YHWH requires of him.
1Sa 15:2-3
“ Thus says YHWH of hosts, I have marked what Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
What in fact YHWH requires of him is that he ‘devote’ Amalek to YHWH. That will involve destroying the Amalekites and all connected with them. The idea of ‘devoting’ a people in this way was that they were consecrated to God in judgment and must be offered to Him in their totality. Those who performed this work were seen to be acting as God’s instruments of justice. For that reason they must take no benefit of it for themselves, for everything involved was ‘devoted’ to and belonged to YHWH. We can compare how Jericho was also previously devoted to YHWH and how Achan was executed because he kept for himself certain ‘devoted things’ (Joshua 6-7). Thus what Saul was being called on to do was a most sacred task, and as he knew perfectly well, not to carry it out to the letter would be sacrilege. This was not unique to Israel. Similar ideas were also found among surrounding countries such as Moab (it is referred to on the Moabite Stone), while evidence of it is also found at Mari.
The basis of it in this case was stated to be because the Amalekites were the first to attack the people of Israel as they came out of Egypt, when they were especially vulnerable in the wilderness (Exodus 17). The Amalekites had mercilessly swooped down on them, decimating their lines in order to obtain booty, and probably having also the aim of preventing them from passing through what they saw as Amalekite territory. These Amalekites were wandering tribespeople like the Bedouin today, and in those days they obtained much of their wealth by preying on others. They were a part of the alliance of tribes that caused such misery to the new nation of Israel in Jdg 3:13; Jdg 6:3-6, and they would think nothing of wiping out any whom they saw as intruding on their wide-ranging territory. They made an exception of small tribes like the Kenites whom they saw as also being genuine desert-dwellers. Some may well eventually have settled down to semi-nomadic living. But like the Canaanites/Amorites earlier, YHWH now saw them as having filled up their sins to the full (compare Gen 15:16).
We should note that 1Sa 14:48 suggests that they had recently been despoiling the Israelites so that this was not just something out of the blue concerning things long past, but was a means of preventing further injury to the people of Israel. Total destruction was necessary because if such a people were not totally destroyed they would re-gather, associate with other tribespeople and subsequently take their revenge. The security of the people of Israel security thus demanded their annihilation. Nevertheless it was also to be seen as fulfilling God’s curse on Amalek because of what they had previously done (Exo 17:16; Num 24:20; Deu 25:17-19).
(We should note how long the Amalekites had had to repent of and change their ways. YHWH had not brought His curse into effect immediately. It was rather exacted as a result of further infringements.
The slaughter of all their cattle was seen as similar to offering up sacrifices to YHWH with the difference that it was done at once, without an altar and without any participation in the meat. All had been devoted to Him and was now being offered to Him. They would be slaughtered and then burned to ashes.
We should recognise that the whole point of The Ban (the devoting of people and things to YHWH) was that none would benefit from the slaughter. It was intended to be solemnly treated as an act of YHWH’s judgment. We who live in less violent days, who do not sit in our houses and work in our fields wondering when the Amalekites will next sweep down on us and murder us all, cringe at the thought of this total destruction of a people, but we should remember that for people in those days there would have been no better news for them than that of their final deliverance from the threat of the depredations of the murderous Amalekites. To them it would have been like us locking up all the criminals at once.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Sa 15:1-35 God Rejects Saul for not Destroying the Amalekites – The story of King Saul encroaching upon the priestly office in 1Sa 15:1-35 is an example of what happens to many ministers of God today. They begin their calling in the ministry with zeal and a clean heart. After some time, the doctrines of man override the Word in God in their faith. They reject the full Gospel message in order to please their colleagues in the ministry. They stop pursuing the heart of God, and begin to serve an organization, or denomination, made by man. They never fulfil the calling of God in their lives because they can no longer hear the voice of God. The Scriptures become too difficult to understand. Other written books become their source of theology. This type of minister has, in fact, despised and taken lightly the call of God in his life. He cannot find the right path from a Word from God, because he has left his path, or plan, for his life.
In 1Sa 15:10-11 Saul comes short of God’s commandment for him. So will a minister come short of God’s plan for his life if he does not embrace the Scriptures fully, and not just a part of the Holy Bible? In 1Sa 15:13, Saul had deceived himself into thinking that he was in God’s will, when, in fact, he was far from the will of the Lord. So do ministers today deceive themselves about God’s direction in their lives.
When Samuel confronts Saul with his sins, Saul repents before Samuel. In contrast, when David is confronted by the prophet Nathan for his sins with Bathsheba, David repents before God from his heart. Thus, Saul’s repentance in this passage of Scripture appears shallow and not genuinely from the heart.
1Sa 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
1Sa 15:1
1Sa 15:6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:6
[29] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Kenites.”
Exo 18:10, “And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.”
Num 10:29, “And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses’ father in law , We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel.”
Jdg 1:16, “And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father in law , went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.”
Jdg 4:11, “Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses , had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.”
1Sa 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
1Sa 15:9
1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
1Sa 15:11
1Sa 12:23, “Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:”
The word “cried” is the same word referring to prayer and intercession in 1Sa 7:9.
1Sa 7:9, “And Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered it for a burnt offering wholly unto the LORD: and Samuel cried unto the LORD for Israel; and the LORD heard him.”
Note in 1Sa 15:16, we see that God also spoke to Samuel in this night of prayer.
1Sa 15:16, “Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.”
1Sa 15:11 Comments – Samuel had not yet went out to meet Saul and the word of the Lord came to him telling him about Saul’s disobedience. A clear sign of someone who has forgotten God the fact that he is disobeying God’s Words.
1Sa 15:12 And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal.
1Sa 15:12
Jos 15:54-55, “And Humtah, and Kirjatharba, which is Hebron , and Zior; nine cities with their villages: Maon, Carmel , and Ziph, and Juttah,”
1Sa 15:12 “and, behold, he set him up a place ” Comments Saul was apparently making a monument to glorify his recent victory of the Amalekites, something not uncommon for kings to do to remember historic events.
1Sa 15:12 “and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal” – Comments – It is at Gilgal that Samuel anointed Saul as king (1Sa 11:14-15).
1Sa 11:14-15, “Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there. And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal; and there they sacrificed sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly.”
1Sa 15:13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.
1Sa 15:13
1Sa 15:14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
1Sa 15:14
1Sa 15:15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.
1Sa 15:15
1Sa 15:15 Comments – Saul justifies his sin.
1Sa 15:16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
1Sa 15:16
1Sa 15:16 “and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night ” Comments – The phrase “this night” means, “last night.” Samuel had spent the night in prayer (1Sa 15:11). In the African language of Luganda, a person refers to the previous night in this manner if it is before noon. However, in the afternoon, the phrase, “this night” will refer to the upcoming night.
1Sa 15:11, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.”
1Sa 15:16 “And he said unto him, Say on.” – Comments – Saul said, “Speak on.”
1Sa 15:17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel?
1Sa 15:17
1Sa 15:19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
1Sa 15:19
Jos 7:21, “When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them , and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.”
1Sa 15:20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:21 1Sa 15:20-21
1Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
1Sa 15:22
[30] Joyce Meyer, Life in the Word (Fenton, Missouri: Joyce Meyer Ministries), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.
1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
1Sa 15:23
1Sa 15:35, “And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.”
1Sa 28:6, “And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.”
1Sa 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
1Sa 15:24
Pro 14:12, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
1Sa 15:24 Comments – Saul was more concerned about what the people thought about him than what God thought about him.
1Sa 15:25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.
1Sa 15:25
2Co 7:10, “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”
1Sa 15:26 And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.
1Sa 15:26
1Sa 15:27 And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
1Sa 15:27
1Sa 15:28 And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
1Sa 15:29 1Sa 15:29
1Sa 13:3-4, “And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear. And all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten a garrison of the Philistines , and that Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. And the people were called together after Saul to Gilgal.”
1Sa 15:29 “will not lie nor repent” Scripture References – Note:
Pro 29:1, “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy .”
Num 23:19, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent : hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
1Sa 15:30 Then he said, I have sinned: yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD thy God.
1Sa 15:30
1Sa 15:30 “yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel” Scripture References – Note:
Psa 49:20, “Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish.”
Joh 12:43, “For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”
1Sa 15:30 A major battle had just been won, and Saul wants to be honoured, as if receiving the credit due to God Almighty, who was the true “Strength of Israel” (1Sa 15:29).
1Sa 15:31 So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshipped the LORD.
1Sa 15:31
1Sa 15:31 “Saul worshiped the Lord” – Comments – It is possible to still come to church, pray and read our Bibles when we have not repented and humbled ourselves before God. We want every one to see how religious we are, but in reality, this is religious hypocrisy.
1Sa 15:32 Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
1Sa 15:32
1Sa 15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.
1Sa 15:34 1Sa 15:35 1Sa 15:35
1Sa 15:35 Comments – One major difference between King Saul and King David was that David never rejected or disobeyed the prophet of the Lord, while Saul rejected the office of the prophet and priest. For example, in the midst of David’s sin with Bathsheba, he humbled himself at the voice of Nathan the prophet. In contrast, Saul disobeyed the voice of Samuel, and because Saul did not repent, God never sent Samuel back to Saul with a word from God. (Perhaps this is because the Holy Spirit is a gentleman and will not impose Himself upon us.) In addition, Saul killed the Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father’s house, the priests that were in Nob, and their families (1Sa 22:6-19). At this point Saul’s heart was hardened so that God could no longer speak to him. When he was facing death, he sought a word from Samuel through the witch of Endor (1Sa 28:7-19).
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Unauthorized Action of Saul
v. 1. Samuel also said unto Saul, v. 2. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, v. 3. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, v. 4. And Saul gathered the people together, v. 5. And Saul came to a city of Amalek, v. 6. And Saul said unto the Kenites, v. 7. And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, v. 8. And he took Agag, the king of the Amalekites, alive and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword, v. 9. But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
FINAL REJECTION OF SAUL (1Sa 15:1-35.)
EXPOSITION
DIVINE COMMAND TO PUNISH THE AMALEKITES, AND ITS EXECUTION BY SAUL (1Sa 15:1-9).
1Sa 15:1
Samuel also said. Better literally, “And Samuel said.” There is no note of time, but probably a considerable interval elapsed before this second trial of Saul was made. God does not finally reject a man until, after repeated opportunities for repentance, he finally proves obdurate. David committed worse crimes than Saul, but he had a tender conscience, and each fall was followed by deep and earnest sorrow. Saul sinned and repented not. Just, then, as Eli had a first warning, which, though apparently unconditional in its terms (1Sa 2:27-36), was really a call to repentance, and was only made irrevocable by his persistence for many years in the same sins (1Sa 3:11-14), so was it with Saul. The prophet’s words in 1Sa 13:13, 1Sa 13:14 were a stern warning, and had Saul taken them to heart, God would have forgiven him his sin. He repented not, but repeated the offence, and so the sentence was confirmed. When, then, critics say that we have two accounts of Saul’s rejection, and that he is represented as having been set aside first for one reason and then for another, their objection arises entirely from a false view of God’s dealings with mankind. Alike promises and threatenings, blessings and punishments are conditional; for there is no heathen fatalism in Holy Scripture, but mercy waiting to triumph over justice. God, then, was not willing lightly to cast away so noble an instrument as Saul. His first sin too had been committed when he was new in the kingdom, and in a position of danger and difficulty. He waits, therefore, till Saul has had some years of success and power, and his character has developed itself, and is taking its permanent form; and then again gives him a trial in order to test his fitness to be a theocratic king. The interest, then, of this chapter lies in the unfolding of Saul’s character, and so it follows immediately upon 1Sa 14:1-52; which was occupied with the same subject, without any note of chronology, because the historical narrative is subservient to the personal. Hence, too, Samuel’s solemn address, reminding Saul that he was Jehovah’s anointed one, and therefore had special duties towards him; that he had also been anointed by Samuel’s instrumentality, and after earnest instruction as to his duties; and, finally, that Israel was Jehovah’s people, and their king, therefore, bound to obey Jehovah’s commands.
1Sa 15:2
Amalek. The Amalekites were a fierce race of nomads who inhabited the desert to the south of Judaea towards Egypt. They were, and still continue to be in their descendants, the Bedouins, an untamable race of savages, whose delight is in robbery and plunder. Between them and Israel there was bitter hostility occasioned by their having attacked the people immediately after the Exodus (Exo 17:8-16), and the command there given to exterminate them is repeated now, probably in consequence of their raids having become more numerous and sanguinary under their present king, as we gather from 1Sa 15:33. The reference to a war with the Amalektes in 1Sa 14:48 no doubt refers to this expedition, as we have there a mere summary of Saul’s military enterprises. I remember. Literally, “I have visited;” but the sense of remembering seems confirmed by such passages as Gen 21:1; Gen 1:24; Isa 23:17; Isa 26:16. The Septuagint, however, and Aquila, give a very good sense: “I have considered, “thought over.” How he laid wait for him in the way. There is no idea in the Hebrew of ambuscade or treachery. It is simply, “How he set himself in the way against him,” i.e. opposed, withstood him, tried to bar his progress.
1Sa 15:3
Utterly destroy. Hebrew, “put under the ban.” The word herem, ban, properly signifies a thing set apart, especially one devoted to God; and whatever was so devoted could not be redeemed, but must be slain. When a country was put under the ban, all living things, men and cattle, were to be killed; no spoil might be taken, but it was to be burnt, and things indestructible by fire, as silver and gold, were to be brought into the treasury. Everything, in short, belonging to such a nation was looked upon as accursed (see Num 21:2, Num 21:3).
1Sa 15:4
Telaim. Kimchi identifies this with Telem (Jos 15:24), a place on the southern border of Judah near the country of the Amalekites. But as telaim means “lambs,” more probably beth, “house,” is to be understood; and so it was no town, but the “place of lambs,” i.e. some open spot where at the proper season the lambs were collected from the pastures in the wilderness. Ten thousand men of Judah. A very small number compared with the hosts of Israel, especially as Judah was most exposed to the Amalekite, raids
, but, for some reason or other, broke up into small tribes, some, as those here spoken of, choosing the wilderness of Judah for their home (Jdg 1:16), others living far to the north in Naphtali (Jdg 4:11, Jdg 4:17), others among the rocks of Arabia Petraea. Of these last we know but little, but the rest continued to be on friendly terms with David (1Sa 30:29).
1Sa 15:7
From Havilah until thou comest to Shur. Hebrew, “from Havilah as thou goest towards Shur.” It seems impossible that this Havilah can be the northwestern portion of Yemen, called Chawlan, and identified with the Havilah of Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29, as this would make Saul smite them from southeast to northwest. Shur, which means wall, is, as Wellhausen (Text Samuel 97) observes, originally the name of the wall which ran from Pelusium past Migdol to Hero, and which gave to Egypt, as Ebers thinks, its name Mizraim, the enclosed or fortified. Shur is again mentioned in 1Sa 27:8 as indicating the direction towards Egypt of the region occupied by the Amalekites. Havilah, which means circle, must have been some spot on the route to the isthmus of Suez, lying on the edge of the wilderness to the south of Judah, where Saul commenced his foray. Beginning thus upon the borders of Judaea, Saul continued his devastations up to the limits of Egypt.
1Sa 15:8
He took Agag. This was the official name of the Amalekite kings (see Num 24:7), as Pharaoh was that of the kings of Egypt. For its meaning we must wait till we know more about the language of this race. Agag, however, from 1Sa 15:32, seems to have been able to speak Hebrew. He utterly destroyedi.e. put under the banall the people. They appear, however, again in 1Sa 27:8, and with so vast a wilderness in which to take refuge, it would be impossible really to exterminate a people used to lead a wandering life. Moreover, as soon as Israel began to lay hands on the spoil the pursuit would flag, as the cattle would be killed by over driving.
1Sa 15:9
The fatlings. So the Syriac and Chaldee render the word, but the Hebrew literally means “the second best.” Kimchi and Tanchum give perhaps a preferable rendering, “the second born,” such animals being considered superior to the first born, as the dams had by that time arrived at their full strength.
REJECTION OF SAUL AND HIS DYNASTY (1Sa 15:10-23).
1Sa 15:11
It repenteth me. By the law of man’s free will his concurrence is necessary in carrying out the Divine purpose, and consequently every man called to the execution of any such purpose undergoes a probation. God’s purpose will be finally carried out, but each special instrument, if it prove unworthy, will be laid aside. This change of administration is always described in Scriptural language as God’s repentance, possibly because the phrase contains also the idea of the Divine grief over the rebellious sinner. But though Saul and his dynasty were thus put aside, and no longer represented Jehovah, still Saul remained the actual king, because God works slowly by the natural sequence of cause and effect. Saul’s ill-governed temper, and his hatred and malice towards David, were the means of bringing about his ruin. It grieved Samuel. Hebrew, “it burned to Samuel,” i.e. he was angry and displeased. The same phrase occurs in Jon 4:1, where it is rendered “he was very angry.” But with whom was Samuel vexed? Generally at the whole course of events, but especially with Saul. In choosing him he had hoped that, in addition to high military qualities, he would possess a religious and obedient heart. He had now obtained for him a second trial, and if, warned by his earlier failure, he had proved trustworthy all might have been well. Saul had too many noble gifts for Samuel to feel indifferent at the perversion of so great an intellect and so heroic a heart. But he was of a despotic temperament, and would bend to no will but his own; and so he had saved the best of the plunder to enrich the people, and Agag possibly as a proof of his personal triumph. And he cried unto Jehovah all night. I.e. he offered an earnest prayer for forgiveness for Saul, and for a change in his heart. As Abravanel says, Samuel no doubt loved Saul for his beauty and heroism, and therefore prayed for him; but no change came in answer to his prayer, and as forgiveness is conditional upon man’s repentance, Saul was not forgiven. It is remarkable how often Samuel is represented as “crying” unto God (see 1Sa 7:8, 1Sa 7:9; 1Sa 12:18).
1Sa 15:12
Samuel rose early. If Samuel was at home at Ramah, he would have a journey of several days before reaching Carmel, the city mentioned in Jos 15:55, on the road from Arad, on the borders of the wilderness of Judah, about ten miles southeast of Hebron. The words in the morning should be joined with rose early. Before setting out, however, Samuel learned that Saul had already marched northward towards Gilgal, having first set him up a placeHebrew, “a hand,” i.e. a monument, something to call attention to his victory. In 2Sa 18:18 Absalom’s pillar is styled “Absalom’s hand.” A Hebrew trophy in honour of a victory possibly had a hand carved upon it. Gilgal was the city in the Jordan valley near Jericho, whither Samuel now followed Saul.
1Sa 15:13
Blessed be thou of Jehovah. Saul meets Samuel with all external respect, and seems even to expect his approval, saying, I have performed the commandment of Jehovah. And so he had in the half way in which men generally keep God’s commandments, doing that part which is agreeable to themselves, and leaving that part undone which gives them neither pleasure nor profit. Saul probably had thought very little about the exact terms of the command given him, and having successfully accomplished the main point of carrying out a vast foray against the Amalekites, regarded the captive king and the plundered cattle as proofs of his victory. The trophy at Carmel is a token of his own self satisfaction.
1Sa 15:14
What meaneth then this bleating? etc. Literally, “What is this voice of sheep in my ears, and the voice of oxen?” While Saul’s own conscience was silent they were proclaiming his disobedience.
1Sa 15:15
They have brought them. No doubt this was verbally true, and very probably the excuse of holding a great sacrifice to Jehovah had been put prominently forward. But reasons are never wanting when men have made up their minds, and the people who so readily obeyed Saul before (1Sa 14:24, 1Sa 14:34, 1Sa 14:40) would have obeyed him now, had he really wished it. For a king so wilful and imperious as Saul thus to seek for excuses, and try to throw the blame on others, marks, as has been well observed, a thorough break down of his moral character.
1Sa 15:16
Stay. Samuel will hear no more. Long as he had striven for him in prayer (1Sa 15:11), he now feels that Saul has fallen too low for recovery to be possible. This night. It is plain from this that Samuel had not gone to meet Saul at Carmel, but on receiving information of his movements had proceeded straight to Gilgal, distant from Ramah about fifteen miles.
1Sa 15:17
Whenrather, Thoughthou wast little in thine own sight. Before his elevation to the royal dignity Saul had deemed himself altogether unequal to so heavy a task (1Sa 9:21); now, after great military successes, he is filled with arrogance, and will rule in open defiance of the conditions upon which Jehovah had appointed him to the office
1Sa 15:18
The sinners. The Amalekites were a race of robbers, and the command “to devote them” was the consequence of the robbery and murder practised by them on the Israelite borders.
1Sa 15:20, 1Sa 15:21
Saul’s justifcation of himself is remarkable, as he seems entirely unconscious of having done anything wrong. His education had no doubt been defective (1Sa 10:12), and his knowledge of the law was probably very small; but he must have listened to Samuel’s injunctions in a very off hand way, and have troubled himself about very little more than that he was to make war upon the Amalekites. There may even have been the wish in his mind to let Samuel know that he was now king, and would carry on affairs after his own fashion. The very form of his answer requires notice; for the word rendered yea is literally in that, or because, and may be paraphrased as follows: Do you reproach me thus because I have obeyed you? See, there is Agag in proof of our victory; and if the people have spared the cattle, it was with the best of intentions. The next clause, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, reads in the A.V. like an ironical parenthesis. It is not so, but an important part of Saul’s defence. These sheep and oxen were “the best of the devoted things,” selected as the first fruits for sacrifice. Saul may not have known that such a sacrifice was forbidden (Deu 13:15-17). The words, to sacrifice unto Jehovah thy God, imply that Samuel ought to be pleased at the victorious army doing this public homage to the Deity whose prophet he was. It was virtually a compliment to himself, and is very much in accordance with the notions of the generality of people now, who consider that attendance at a place of worship, or sending their children to school, is a favour to the clergyman.
1Sa 15:22, 1Sa 15:23
The rebuke of Samuel contains one of those pregnant sayings which mark the high moral tone of the teaching of the prophets, and soon became a fundamental principle with them. To obey is better than sacrifice is a dictum reproduced by Hosea (Hos 6:6), the most ancient of those prophets of Israel whose lessons have been preserved in writing; it is referred to in still earlier psalms (see Psa 1:1-6 :8-14; Psa 51:16, Psa 51:17); by other prophets (Isa 1:11; Jer 6:20; Mic 6:6, Mic 6:8); and finally received our Lord’s special approbation (Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7). It asserts in the clearest terms the superiority of moral to ritual worship, and that God can only be really served with the heart. Witchcraft is in the Hebrew divination, a sin always strongly condemned in the Old Testament. Iniquity literally means nothingness, and so is constantly used for “an idol;” and this must be its signification here, as the word coupled with it, and rendered idolatry, is really teraphim. These were the Hebrew household gods, answering to the Roman Lares, and were supposed to bring good luck. Their worship, we see from this place, was strictly forbidden. The verse, therefore, means, “For rebellion is the sin of divination (i.e. is equal to it in wickedness), and obstinacy (i.e. intractableness) is an idol and teraphim.” Samuel thus accuses Saul of resistance to Jehovah’s will, and of the determination at all hazards to be his own master. With this temper of mind he could be no fit representative of Jehovah, and therefore Samuel dethrones him. Henceforward he reigns only as a temporal, and no longer as the theocratic, king.
SAUL‘S PROFESSION OF REPENTANCE AND FINAL REJECTION (verses 24-35).
1Sa 15:24
The words of Samuel struck Saul with terror. The same authority which had first given him the kingdom now withdraws it from him, and pronounces his offence as equal in God’s sight to crimes which Saul himself held in great abhorrence. He humbles himself, therefore, before Samuel, acknowledges his sin, and frankly confesses that the cause of it had been his unwillingness to act in a manner contrary to the wishes of the people; and we must fairly conclude that the sparing of the spoil had been the people’s doing. But was it not the king’s duty to make the people obedient to Jehovah’s voice? As the theocratic king, he was Jehovah’s minister, and in preferring popularity to duty he showed himself unworthy of his position. Nor can we suppose that his confession of sin arose from penitence. It was the result simply of vexation at having his victory crossed by reproaches and disapproval from the only power capable of holding him in check. It seems, too, as if it were Samuel whom he feared more than Jehovah; for he speaks of thy words, and asks Samuel to pardon his sin, and to grant him the favour of his public presence with him at the sacrifice which was about to be celebrated in honour of their triumph.
1Sa 15:26, 1Sa 15:27, 1Sa 15:28
At first the prophet refuses the king’s request. Saul had dishonoured God, and, therefore, had no claim to public homage from God’s minister. He turns, therefore, to go away, and Saul in his eagerness seizes hold of Samuel’s mantle. The A.V. is very careless about the exact rendering of words of this description, and seems guided in its choice of terms simply by the ear. Now the mantle, addereth, though used of the Shinar shawl stolen by Achan (Jos 7:21, Jos 7:24), was the distinctive dress of the prophets, but naturally was never worn by Samuel himself. Special dresses come into use only gradually, and Elijah is the first person described as being thus clad. Long before his time the schools of the prophets had grown into a national institution, and a loose wrapper of coarse cloth made of camel’s hair, fastened round the body at the waist by a leathern girdle, had become the usual prophetic dress, and continued so to be until the arrival of Israel’s last prophet, John the Baptist (Mat 3:4). The garment here spoken of is the meil, on which see 1Sa 2:19, where it was shown to be the ordinary dress of people of various classes in easy circumstances. Now the meil was not a loosely flowing garment, but fitted rather closely to the body, and, therefore, the tearing of it implies a considerable amount of violence on Saul’s part. Skirt, moreover, gives a wrong idea. What Saul took hold of was the hem, the outer border of the garment, probably at Samuel’s neck or shoulder, as he turned to go away. He seized him, as we should say, by the collar, and endeavoured by main force to retain him, and in the struggle the hem rent. And Samuel, using it as an omen, said, Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou. Neighbour is used in Hebrew in a very indefinite manner, and here means generally “some one, whoever it may be,” but one who will discharge the duties of thy office better than thou hast done (comp. Luk 10:36).
1Sa 15:29
The Strengthbetter, as in the margin, the Victory or Triumphof Israel. He who is Israel’s Victory, or He in whom Israel has victory, will not repent. In 1Sa 15:11 God was said to repent, because there was what appeared to be a change in the Divine counsels. “God gave Israel a king in his anger, and took him away in his wrath” (Hos 13:11). But such modes of speaking are in condescension to human weakness. Absolutely with God there is no change. He is the Eternal Present, with whom all things that were, and are, and shall be are one. But even looked at from below, as this finite creature man looks at his Maker’s acts, there is no change in the Divine counsels, because, amidst all the vicissitudes of human events, God’s will moves calmly forward without let or hindrance. No lower or secondary motives influence him, no rival power thwarts him. One instrument may be laid aside, and another chosen, because God ordains that the instruments by which he works shall be beings endowed with free will. Saul was the very counterpart of the Jewish peoplehighly endowed with noble qualities, but headstrong, self-willed, disobedient. Nevertheless, he laid the foundation for the throne of David, who in so many points was the ideal of the theocratic king; and Israel in like manner prepared the way for the coming of the true Messianic King, and gave mankind the one Catholic, i.e. universal, religion. “He who is Israel’s Victory does not repent.”
1Sa 15:30, 1Sa 15:31
Then he said, I have sinned. We have here no real confession of guilt. Even in 1Sa 15:24 the words were rather an expression of vexation at the strictness with which he was held to the letter of the command, than an acknowledgment that he really had done wrong. Here Saul’s meaning seems to be, Well, granting that I have sinned, and that this sentence of exclusion kern the kingdom is passed upon me, yet at least pay me the honor due to the rank which I still continue to hold. And to this request Samuel accedes. Saul was de facto king, and would continue to be so during his lifetime. The anointing, once bestowed, was a consecration for life, and so generally it was in the days of the son that the consequences of the father’s sin came fully to pass (1Ki 11:1-43 :84, 35; 1Ki 14:13, etc.). Had Samuel refused the public honour due to Saul’s rank, it would have given an occasion for intrigue and resistance to all who were disaffected with Saul’s government, and been a step towards bringing back the old anarchy. Jehovah thy God. See on 1Sa 15:13.
1Sa 15:32
Delicately. The Septuagint and Vulgate translate this word trembling, and the Syriac omits, probably from inability to give its meaning. Most commentators render cheerfully, joyfully, forming it from the same root as Eden, the garden of joy (comp. Psa 36:8, where Eden is translated pleasure). The very word, however, occurs in Job 38:31, where the A.V. renders it bands, and this seems the right sense: “Agag came unto him in fetters.” The idea that Agag came cheerfully is contradicted by the next clauseSurely the bitterness of death is passed. Though put affirmatively, there is underlying doubt. It is no expression of heroic contempt for death, nor of real confidence that, as Saul had spared him hitherto, his life was in no danger. He had been brought to the national sanctuary, and a great festival in honour of the success of the army was to be held. It was entirely in accordance with the customs of ancient times that his execution should be the central feature of the spectacle. Agag’s words show that this fear was present in his mind, though they are put in such a form as to be a protest against his life being taken after so long delay. Samuel’s reply treats Agag’s assertion as being thus at once a question and a protest. The bitterness of death has still to be borne, and the cruelty of Agag’s past life makes the shedding of his own blood just. The Syriac translates, “Surely death is bitter;” the Septuagint, “If death be so bitter,” with which the Vulgate agrees. Thus they all understood that Agag came trembling for his life.
1Sa 15:33
As thy sword hath made women childless. Agag’s life had been spent in freebooting expeditions, in which he had shed blood ruthlessly, and so justice required his execution in requital of his deeds to others. Samuel hewed Agag in pieces. The verb occurs only here, and probably refers to some particular method of execution, like the quartering of the middle ages. Being in the Piel conjugation, it would mean not so much that Samuel put Agag to death himself as that he commanded it to be done.
1Sa 15:35
Samuel came no more to see Saul. The friendly intercourse which had previously existed was now broken off, and though they met again (1Sa 19:24), it was neither in an amicable manner, nor was their interview of Samuel’s seeking. But the words have a higher meaning than the mere seeing or meeting one with the other. They involve the cessation of that relation in which Samuel and Saul had previously stood to one another as respectively the prophet and king of the same Jehovah Saul was no longer the representative of Jehovah, and consequently Samuel no more came to him, bearing messages and commands, and giving him counsel and guidance from God. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul. There was so much in him that was good and admirable, and he had wrought such brave services in delivering Israel from its many enemies, that Samuel loved him. Now he saw all his high qualities perverted, the man fallen, his powers of usefulness destroyed. Already, too, there was probably the beginning of that darkening of Saul’s intellect which filled so many of his future years with melancholy, bursting out from time to time into fits of madness. All this would end in the expulsion of himself and his dynasty from the throne, for Jehovah repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. See on 1Sa 15:11
HOMILETICS
1Sa 15:1-7
God’s terrible acts.
The facts are
1. Saul is reminded that though a king he is but the servant of God, and bound to carry out his declared will.
2. Saul is commanded to utterly destroy Amalek in retribution for former sins.
3. In prosecuting his duty Saul discriminates in favour of the Kenites, then resident among the Amalekites, in consequence of their former kindness to Israel. It appears from 1Sa 14:48 that, although the sin of Amalek in bygone times (Exo 17:8-16) was the primary ground of the judgment about to be inflicted, the recent annoyance and injury caused to Saul’s subjects was the occasion for the execution of the ancient sentence at this juncture. Those living under the mild and beneficent influences of the Christian dispensation are conscious of a shock to their sensibilities in reading the account of wholesale destruction brought by human instrumentality on an entire people; and the emotional disturbance is supplemented by intellectual perplexity on observing that the transaction was in obedience to a most explicit command of God. It is sometimes the practice, very easy for all who will not take pains to enter carefully into the subject, to get rid of the emotion and the perplexity by rejecting the inspiration of the entire record, or else by saying that Samuel and Saul sincerely but ignorantly mistook their own views of policy and dispositions of heart for the voice of God. The question at issue is a large one, but as it embraces in principle the whole of what in the Psalms are called his “terrible acts,” which, whenever occurring or read, tax our feelings and perplex our intellects, we may notice a few points applicable more or less to all God’s righteous judgments.
I. THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH WE SHOULD APPROACH THE CONSIDERATION OF GOD‘S “TERRIBLE ACTS.” It is not improbable that an unteachable, self-assertive spirita spirit that will not repose in a higher wisdom and goodness than its own, or that chafes under its inability to square human views of sin and its relations with God’sis the moral cause of man’s quarrel with some of the records of Old Testament history. Our present contention is not with atheists, who to get rid of one difficulty create many others, but with those who believe in an almighty, all-wise, and merciful God, who is the Author of the moral and physical laws, by the action of which the world finds bliss or woe. We cannot help finding ourselves face to face with events bringing sorrow add shame, material and moral desolation to multitudes, because God so willed one creature’s condition to be affected by the conduct of another. Apart from all human conduct, there are awful events in which, so to speak, the reputation of God for goodness and tenderness seems to be at stake. This circumstance should make the rejecter of Old Testament records pause ere he yields to the spirit of unbelief. There are “clouds and darkness” round about the throne; and he who would flee from mystery may well seek to flee from the universe. The judgment that condemns everything of which it does not see the reason is not qualified to exercise itself on the acts of an infinite Being. The cherubim and seraphim cover their faces, not presuming to attempt to pierce even with their clear and strong vision the ineffable glory; and so when a great burden of fear rests on our heart because of the terrible things of God, it is for us to bow in lowliness and trustfulness, saying for our comfort, because of what we know him to be, and not because we can solve the awful problems of existence, “Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?” (Rev 15:3, Rev 15:4; cf. Psa 36:6).
II. FACTS AND PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD WEIGH WITH US IN OUR THOUGHTS UPON GOD‘S “TERRIBLE ACTS.” It is not possible to find a perfect solution of all the acts ascribed to God, or even those known, without question, to result from his appointments. But some light shines around the “clouds and darkness,” and here and there a rift in the awful covering appears.
1. There is an awful as well as a mild aspect of the Divine nature. Christianity is no doubt mildness, tenderness, peace, loveall that is precious to the sorrowing, perplexed spirit. The tendency of some, however, is to overlook the significant fact that all this becomes real to us in virtue of the awful sufferings and death of the Son of God. The fact, and the evident necessity of the fact, for otherwise it would not occur, of his unutterable woes is perhaps the most stupendous of all terrible acts known by man. There was the love that gave him for man; yes, and the awful righteousness which had so originally constituted the moral relations of men to a holy God that love could only effect its work through a catastrophe, on which angels must have gazed with perplexity, and possibly pain, greater than any we know when contemplating a ruined Amalek or a world swept by deluge. It is an imperfect Christianity which eliminates the majesty of righteousness in Law. He who said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” is the same who one day will say, “Depart.” “These shall go away into everlasting punishment.” The “wrath of the Lamb” is as real as his love.
2. The events which confound our thought are not confined to the Scripture record. Who shall estimate the pains of death experienced during the succession of catastrophes incident to the history of our globe? It is probable that the number of Amalekites who fell under the judgment of God was less than the sum of young and old who in one day experience the “pains of death” by the ordination of God. The destruction caused by the deluge, the fire on Sodom, the waters on the Egyptians, is not greater in the number of lives cut off than what befell the thousands cut off by events not mentioned in the Bible. What though the eventsthe sweeping calamities of famine, plague, earthquake, and flood, and the daily sufferings and death of thousands of young and oldbe the outcome of law! God is the Author of that law, and, therefore, the events are in a significant sense his, as truly as were the ruin of Sodom and the doom of the Amalekites. No doubt the sum of enjoyment in the lives of creatures cut off by catastrophes was far in excess of the sum of misery experienced in the cutting of them off, and so a philosopher can still rest in the benevolence of God. Sudden destruction is not identical with a whole existence given up only to anguish.
3. So far as we can see, the great woes that come by ordinary law and by special command are alike subordinate to an ulterior issue. Although we speak of some events occurring by the action of natural law,e.g. earthquakes, floods, famines, and plagues,yet those in which the specific command appears are also according to law. The difference lies in the fact of the Divine origin of the arrangement which issues in destruction being brought out and emphasised. The laws that work ruin in fire and tempest and flood are subordinate to the higher laws involved in the perfect economy of the world. Laws involving incidental disasters subserve the conservation of the whole system of which they are a part. The laws which bring destruction to men who have sinned, and because they have sinned, are subordinate to the moral laws that govern man’s relation to God. They are so interrelated, in these instances, as to be parts of one great system, and to subserve the final supremacy of the law of righteousness on which the health and well being of the world depend. It is a Divine ordination, and is incorporated with the physical and mental constitution of man, that the sin of the fathers shall be visited, not to the exclusion from woe of the parent, but intensifying it, on the third and fourth generation. We see this law at work every day. Awful as it is, we can even now see its value as subservient to the righteousness which alone makes men blessed; for it is a most potent check to vice. Irrespective of their own immoral condition, the cutting off of the Amalekites for the sin of their ancestors is analogous to the shortened lives, the wretched health, the filthy poverty, and other miseries which are the inevitable lot of the offspring of the desperately vicious; and this for ulterior issues.
4. Nations have no posthumous existence. For individuals judgment is often reserved till another life. Nations, if visited with judgment at all, must suffer here. In the instruction of the individual, the fact of the coming punishment of the individual sinner bears an important part as a deterrent. In the instruction of nations as such, the signal and conspicuous punishment of a people also plays an important part. This use of national judgments is constantly recognised in the language of Scripture. “The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations” (Isa 52:10): “Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men” (Psa 9:20). At the same time the judgments which on earth come on nations as such do not necessarily foreclose hope to the young and innocent among them of a personal salvation from the woe due to the personally guilty in another life.
5. God is the only true Judge of the actual demerits of a guilty nation. We cannot rightly estimate the intrinsic evil even of our own personal sins. “The Judge of all the earth” must decide what is appropriate punishment for national crime; for he only knows the degree of enmity in the minds of Sodomites and Amalekites. None but he can see the intricate bearings of their sin and of their continued existence as a people. He also knows best what blessed deterrent influence will arise to mankind from the conspicuous character of the judgment executed.
6. The means by which judgment is executed appear to be determined by conditions known to God. Judgment works inwardly through the conscience and the mental faculties in general. They bear the curse of the sin committed. It also works externally by the pressure against the sinner of the order of nature, which is in league with righteousness, and ultimately makes “the way of transgressors hard.” Nations have not a very lively conscience. The force of Divine judgments usually comes from without. The instrumentality used is evidently connected with the actual presence of forces which, acting in a natural way under the preordained direction of the Omniscient, become “his arm.” Doubtless there were physical conditions of earth and atmosphere which rendered destruction by a deluge both natural and yet conspicuously of God. The Sodomites were destroyed not by water, nor slow plague, nor famine, but by the natural combustible materials close at hand. The Amalekites were not left to die out by internal anarchy, or famine, or pestilence, but were given up to the action of that international hostility which was as real an element of destruction close at hand as was the volcanic force at Sodom. He who in his vast prevision, seeing the coexistence of the vices of antediluvians with certain fluvial conditions of a portion of the earth, and the coexistence of the sin of Sodom with certain volcanic conditions, used them for this purpose, may have also given full freedom to the play of national sentiment in the minds of Israel coexisting at that juncture with the fit time for the execution of a purpose to obliterate a guilty nation. Had pestilence or earthquake carried them off, it would have been God’s act as truly as when the soldiers of Saul were the executioners of a decree. The employment of an executioner gives no right, but the reverse, to others to go and do the same.
7. The form of punishment on communities under the Old Testament dispensation is evidently suggestive of the danger of antagonism to Christ. The sin of Amalek was that of deliberate attempt to destroy the people of God (Exo 17:8-16; Deu 25:17-19). That means to prevent the realisation of salvation in the “seed of Abraham.” If Amalek knew, as is certainly possible, the lofty claims of Israel, the crime was most fearful. That in the mind of God and of Israel such was the nature of the sin is seen in the discrimination made in favour of the Kenites because they showed kindness to Israel (verse 6). It is at all events clear that God would have men learn that it was the sin of obstructing his purposes of mercy for mankind that was so obnoxious in his sight. The terrible national destruction which this sin brought on is a clear intimation of the “destruction from the presence of the Lord” which must come on the individuals who set themselves in antagonism to Christ and his purposes of mercy to the world. A more terrible sin than that cannot be conceived; a more terrible act of judgment cannot be imagined than that which will come when Christ shall say, “Depart from me, ye cursed” (Mat 25:41). “It is a fearful thing,” even under the gospel dispensation, “to fall into the hands of the living God” after a life of deliberate antagonism to the very Saviour he has sent to redeem us. Although, therefore, there may be much in the recorded “terrible acts” of God which weighs on our spirit and demands of us reverence and humility, still we are not without some gleams of light to sustain our faith both in the sacred records and the righteousness which never fails.
General lessons:
1. We see how judgment does surely come, though for generations it seems to linger.
2. It becomes us to inquire whether we by any conduct of ours are impeding the march of God’s people.
3. We see how God remembers, and causes his servants to remember, acts of kindness rendered to the weary on their way to the promised rest.
4. It is a painful duty to have to be executors of God’s judgments; yet when men in national and domestic affairs are really called to it, let them subordinate personal sentiment to solemn duty.
5. In all our painful thoughts over the woes that come on the universe, involving the young and old, let us seek grace to “be still,” and to wait for the passing away of the night and the coming of the light that shall turn weeping into joy; for it will come.
1Sa 15:8-11
The limits of patience.
The facts are
1. Saul, in disobedience to the command of God, spares Agag and the best of the spoil.
2. God declares to Samuel that he can endure with Saul as king no longer.
3. Samuel, in his grief, cries unto God all night. It is never said that God changes his purpose absolutely. Where promises are given conditional on conduct they are revoked when conduct fails. We cannot ascribe human feelings to God; yet it is only by the analogy of human feelings that we can know anything of the mind of God. The setting aside from kingly office of Saul was an act of the Divine mind conformable with the original purpose of making him king, since the condition of permanence had not been fulfilled. Saul had been borne with so long; now he is to be borne with no longer. Patience yields to judgment.
I. THERE IS A LIMIT TO DIVINE PATIENCE. Patience bears relation to wrongdoing, or the sufferance of ill. In God it relates to the restraint he puts on himself in the presence of that which merits his displeasure. That there is such a limit to Divine patience is clear.
1. The language of Scripture indicates it. The heart of God is represented as being under pressure of a moral force which can scarcely be resisted. “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?” (Hos 11:8). The retrospect of the past brings into view the overpowering considerations which withheld good and allowed calamity to come. “He should have fed them with the finest of the wheat” (Psa 81:16). “O that my people had hearkened unto me!” (ibid. 1Sa 15:13). The persistence of men in sin, despite all counsel and mercy, raises the question of the length of time during which the hand of justice can be stayed. “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Num 14:27). A reference to love, tenderness, and care is set in sad contrast with the doom which the ingratitude so long endured is about to bring (Mat 23:37, Mat 23:38).
2. Recorded facts illustrate it. The vices of the antediluvians were long endured, and it was after the Spirit had striven long with men, and they had refused the warnings of Noah, that patience yielded to the execution of judgment (1Pe 3:20). The repeated warnings given to Pharaoh reveal a patience which terminated in the overthrow in the Red Sea. Patience was “grieved” with the perverse generation in the wilderness, but grief gave place to a “wrath” which barred their entrance into rest (Heb 3:9-12). God endured long with some of the seven Churches in Asia, but at last judgment came, and the candlesticks were removed from their place.
3. The close of the Christian dispensation in a day of judgment is the most awful illustration of the limit to God’s patience. The plain teaching of that great event is that here men have time to repent and obtain through Christ all that will qualify for a perfect lifethat for the term of our earthly life God bears with our sins and provocations, and proves by thousands of favours that he “is slow to anger;” but that the end of all this must come, and judgment on the whole life ensue. His long suffering is great. But “it is appointed to men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27).
II. THE GROUND OF THE LIMIT OF GOD‘S PATIENCE. The yielding of patience to judgment in the case of Saul was on the occasion of his clear and deliberate breach of the command (1Sa 15:1-3, 1Sa 15:8, 1Sa 15:9), and this too after other opportunities of obedience had been abused. But the question arises how it is that a certain degree or persistence in wrong is the occasion of the cessation of patience. There is a vague impression in some minds that because God is perfectly tender and loving his patience need and ought never to fail. This kind of thinking springs from very defective views of the character of God and of his relation to a moral order. It may not be possible for us to give a perfect rationale of Divine procedure; but there is perhaps light enough to indicate the wisdom and goodness of even a limit to God’s patience.
1. The privileges of responsible beings imply a probation for their use. The primary notion of a responsible being is one blessed with privilege, and able to use or abuse it at will But men are constituted so as to derive much wisdom from experience, and hence failure in the use of privilege, in a few instances, may possibly create an experience that will constrain to a more careful observance of duty when newly imposed. Life is full of helps to obedience as well as of hindrances. But as time is required for the development of responsibility, so it is obvious that the possession of privilege involves a limit to the period for use or abuse. Government without a reckoning would be no government. Everlasting patience is inconsistent with responsibility attendant on privilege.
2. In a moral order, where beings are closely interrelated, breach of duty affects others. Saul’s conduct could not end in himself. He, as fount of authority and influence, would damage his people by every act of disobedience to the Divine command. The repeated sins of men are so many attacks on the common welfare of the universe. God “desireth not the death of a sinner,” but that he should “turn and live;” but he is the Guardian of right, of good, of peace, and of all that enters into the true welfare of the entire universe, and hence there is a love most deep and a wisdom unsearchable in not allowing the wilful sinner any longer to be exempt from the restraints which judgment imposes.
3. Repeated acts of disobedience reveal to God a state of mind which will not benefit by further favours. Every act of sin brings man lower in the moral scale. But while mercy and gentleness afford the sinner every possible chance to recover what is lost, it is possible for the habit of sin to gain such power over the entire man that to the eye of the Eternal his last chance of improving additional opportunities is clean gone. Samuel’s distress at the abandonment of Saul (1Sa 15:11) was natural, and if his cry all night Was intercession, it was only what might be expected of a good man who knows only in part. The intercession of Moses (Num 14:15-23) was for pardon, and was partially successful. Samuel’s would appear to have been for pardon in the form of Saul’s continuance in the kingly office with the usual Divine sanctions. It is, however, obvious that the judgment of God was based on his perfect knowledge that the heart of Saul was too far gone to be trusted any further. It is an awful fact that a man may, by transgression, work himself into such a condition that all is lost on him, and will be lost. God, knowing this, may cease to be long suffering, and reject him as “nigh unto cursing” (Heb 6:6-8).
4. The holiness of God requires vindication. Every pang which followed Saul s earlier sins and every rebuke from Samuel was some vindication of the holiness of God. The private and subjective recognition by the sinner of an insulted holiness is not all that the government of God requires. He is a jealous God; he will be honoured in the eyes of all people. Continued long suffering followed by judgment renders holiness more conspicuous than when judgment forestalls long suffering.
General lessons:
1. We should never forget that every day affords us new opportunities of keeping God’s commands.
2. It will repay the effort if we endeavour to form an estimate of the privileges conferred on us in the past, and the extent to which we have drawn on the patience of God.
3. If we are deliberately disobedient in any office of trust, we may some day look for a grave judgment.
4. We are not always competent to see the wisdom of God’s severity, and may possibly pray for what is not to be granted.
1Sa 15:12-23
The sin of rebellion.
The facts are
1. Saul, having raised a monument in honour of his victory, meets Samuel with a pious salutation, as though all were well.
2. On being reminded of the presence of spoil, Saul explains by saying that it was spared for the worship of God in sacrifice.
3. Samuel, referring to the instructions received from God, presses home upon him the fact of his guilt in disobeying the Lord.
4. Saul, in response, maintains that substantially he has obeyed the voice of the Lord, but that the people spared the spoil for a religious purpose.
5. Samuel, therefore, urges the great truth that rigid obedience to God is the primary and essential duty, without which all else is sinful, and that rebellion is a sin as heinous as those which men admit to be most vile.
6. Samuel declares to Saul his rejection of God. The important interview between the disobedient king and the prophet of God brings out several great truths.
I. MAN‘S PREFERENCE OF HIS OWN WILL TO THE CLEARLY DECLARED WILL OF GOD IS POSITIVE REBELLION AGAINST THE SUPREME AUTHORITY. Saul’s sin was known to himself as a preference of his own course in dealing with the Amalekites. He thought it best to modify the command in its detailed execution. No doubt there were reasons which seemed to render such a course useful. It is clear that he did not realise all that it involved, though that was his own fault. To him as a king, whose word was supposed to be law to his subjects, there is something very appropriate in the prophet assuring him that this preference of his own will, however plausible the reasons for it, was not a simple weakness or fault, but nothing less than rebelliona term of fearful significance under a properly constituted government. The preference was virtually a setting up a counter authority, impeaching the wisdom of God. Saul is not the only one to whom God has plainly declared his will. More or less he has spoken to all men (Rom 1:20). To those blessed with the revealed will as contained in the Scriptures he has given commandments as precise and emphatic as that to Saul to destroy the Amalekites. Every believer in Christianity knows as well as he knows anything that God commands him to repent of sin (Act 17:30); to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation from the curse of sin (Joh 20:31; Act 16:30, Act 16:31; 1Jn 5:10-13); to exterminate all evilall Amalekitesfrom the soul (Rom 8:13; 1Th 4:3; 1Pe 1:16); and to submit heart, will, and intellect to the authority of Christ (Mat 11:29; Joh 5:23; Act 10:36; Php 2:10, Php 2:11). Now is it not a fact that men often prefer not to do this? They do not dispute in formal terms the authority of God, any more than did Saul; yet for reasons known to themselves they prefer not to repent of sin, not to commit themselves to Christ, not to cast out sinful desires, not to bow in all things to the yoke of the Saviour. It is possible that reasons may be forthcoming to, at least, show that there is no violent antagonism. But when carefully looked at it is nothing but the positive setting up of man’s will as a better, more to be desired will than God’s; it is positive rebellion of a subject against a kinga setting at nought of the supreme authority of the universe.
II. MAN‘S ESTIMATE OF THE SIN OF REBELLION IS IN STRIKING CONTRAST WITH GOD‘S. Whether Saul was self-persuaded that he had not committed any sin (1Sa 15:13) is, as we shall yet see, doubtful. The probability is that he was conscious of uneasiness, but had no true conception of the enormity of his sin. His feeling was that he had no wish to disown the authority of God, that it was a mere matter of detail, that his general conduct was exemplary, and that he followed the inner light which seemed just then to indicate another way of ultimately and substantially carrying out the command. So do men tone down their sins and regard them as venial. The prophet’s words reveal God’s estimate of the sin of disobedience. It is the cardinal sin (1Sa 15:22, 1Sa 15:23). It cuts at the root of all authority. It is the assertion of a power and a wisdom over against the power and wisdom of the Eternal. It makes man a worshipper of himself rather than of God. It ignores the solemn truth that we “cannot serve two masters.” It does dishonour to him whose commandments are holy, just, and good. It sows in the moral sphere seeds of evil, which, taking root, must widen the aberration of man from God. It claims for the desires and dim light of a sinful creature a higher value in the determination of actions than is to be attached to the purposes of the All-Perfect. To render its heinous character more clear, the prophet asserts that it renders useless and even wicked the most solemn acts of worship (1Sa 15:22; cf. Isa 1:11-15). No profession of religion; no self-denial in surrender of choice property; no conformity with venerable customs, or obedience in other particulars, will for a moment be accepted in lieu of full and implicit obedience to the clear commands which God lays on man both in relation to himself and mankind. God will have no reserve of our will. Again, to make it more impressive, the prophet assures Saul that this rebellion is in its evil nature equal to the sins which men are led by education and custom to regard as the most abominable and indefensible. “As the sin of witchcraft, as iniquity and idolatry.” There are men still who shrink in horror at heathenism and vile arts. Are they prepared to believe that not to obey the clear command to repent, to believe on Christ, to become pure, and to submit in all things to the yoke of Christ, is as dreadful in the sight of God as being an idolater or a vile deceiver? It is this Divine estimate of sin which alone explains the.” many stripes” with which they will be punished who, knowing the Lord’s will with respect to these matters, nevertheless prefer their own. It will be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom than for some of our day (Mat 11:20-24).
III. MAN‘S CONDITION AND CONDUCT AFTER DELIBERATE REBELLION IS A REVELATION OF ITS EVIL NATURE. All sin degrades and debases; it prevents clear vision of one’s own condition and a true estimate of conduct. Sin is always self-apologetic. It enslaves its victims. The opinion of a morally fallen being on matters of high spiritual import must always be discounted. Men in internal opposition to God are not safe guides in dealing with the loftiest problems of human existence. This general effect of sin is more manifest when a man has, after enjoying great advantages, deliberately preferred his own will to the clear will of God. He then enters into darkness most dense, and the fountain of moral thought and feeling becomes more corrupt. We see this in Saul’s subsequent conduct and perverse reasoning with Samuel (1Sa 15:20, 1Sa 15:21). Even when conscience began to he aroused by the impressive language of the prophet, he found a subtle evasion in that, as a king, he had done his part in placing Agag at the disposal of Samuel, but that the people were to blame in the matter of the spoil. Thus it is ever. Sin does not end in itself. It by its evil power induces self-complacency, creates ingenious excuses, prompts to observance of outward religious acts, throws blame on circumstances over which there is no control, and even emboldens the soul to argue with the messengers of God.
IV. ONE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE OF REBELLION IS TO DISQUALIFY FOR SERVICE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Apart from the personal effects of Saul’s sin, the relative effect was to unfit him for performing the part to which he had been called in the service of God. He was rejected from being king (1Sa 15:23). God’s sanction and blessing were henceforth to be withheld. He was to be king in name only. The life once promising good to Israel was to be unblest and fruitful in sorrows. This result follows from every preference of our own will. We cease to hold the position and exercise the influence of God-made kings (Rev 1:4, Rev 1:5) in so far as we fail in perfect execution of the will of the King of kings. It is possible for a man to proceed from step to step in deliberate rebellion till, both on account of his inward moral decay and his pernicious influence, God’sets him aside altogether. A pastor, a parent, a professed Christian may thus be practically disowned by Providence. However he may continue to labour in some lower departments, the higher spiritual service of God will cease to be his.
General lessons.
1. It is very dangerous to begin to compare our wishes and plans, with. the clear will of God; every thought should at once be brought into subjection.
2. Sudden and unusual outbursts of pious zeal may be a sign of an uneasy conscience; steady growth is the proof of reality.
3. The folly of excuses for sin is seen by all except the sinner himself.
4. Sin, when we are exalted to privileges, is doubly base (1Sa 15:17).
5. We must never subordinate what we may call genera/ obedience for actual literal obedience to God’s will (1Sa 15:20).
6. Participation of others in our sin is no palliation of ours (1Sa 15:21).
7. Property obtained by unholy means is not acceptable to God when laid on his altar for professedly religious purposes (1Sa 15:22).
8. Obedience in matters outside acts of worship is a condition of acceptable worship, but not the ground of our salvation.
9. Deceitfulness, depravity, and idolatry are the true and ruinous characteristics of every act of doing our own pleasure when professedly engaged in doing only the will of God (1Sa 15:23).
1Sa 15:24-31
Conviction of sin not repentance.
The facts are
1. Saul, alleging fear of the people, admits his sin, and seeks Samuel’s presence while he worships the Lord.
2. On Samuel refusing and turning away, Saul seizes and rends his garment, which circumstance is used as a sign that so the Lord had rent the kingdom from Saul and given it to another.
3. On being assured that God’s purpose was irrevocable. Saul entreats, for the sake of his credit among the people that Samuel would join him in an act of worship, to which Samuel complies. The decisive language of the prophet, given in a tone which admitted of no mistake, aroused the slumbering conscience of Saul, and brought about his remarkable pleading for pity and help. We have here the case of a man guilty of a great sin, concerned for its forgiveness, but sternly assured that he shall not have it. The apparent severity of the prophet is not based on any arbitrary decree of God, nor on an unchangeableness in the “Strength of Israel” irrespective of human character and conduct, but upon God’s knowledge of Saul’s actual condition. The repentance which Saul thinks to be adequate, and which many men would recognise, is known by the Searcher of hearts not to be true repentance, but only a bare conviction of sin, attended with a consequent dread of the outward temporal consequences attached to it, as just indicated by Samuel. Bare conviction of sin is not true repentance. Consider –
I. ITS REAL NATURE. Conviction of sin is a matter only of an aroused conscience, brought about by the evidence of facts being set before the understanding and the presence of penalties consequent on the evidence. There was no resisting Samuel’s argument. The common understanding saw that a human will in opposition to a Divine was necessarily sin, and the uneasiness of conscience thus naturally aroused was aggravated by the emphatic announcement of a great penaltyloss of the kingdom. The mental operation was that of a pure logical progression from admitted premises to an irresistible conclusion. Conscience does not disturb a man in working out a syllogism in formal logic or a demonstration in mathematics; but it does when the question reasoned on is the man’s own conduct. This is the general nature of the conviction of sin which many experience. Here, observe, is an absence of all that fine spiritual discernment which sees in sin essential unholiness, and that corresponding feeling which loathes it because of what it is in the sight of God. There is no change in the spirit towards sin itself, no detestation of the self-preference which rose against the supreme will.
II. ITS MANIFESTATIONS. The manifestation of Saul’s conviction of sin is a remarkable illustration of the enormous difference between bare conviction and true repentance. The force of evidence and pressure of penalty extorted the admission, “I have sinned:” yet, owing to the lack of the spirit of repentance, the mere generality of that admission was revealed by the immediate palliation, “I feared the people.” Pardon, consisting in the removal of penalty, was the only pardon cared for, and even this was sought by a superstitious trust in the prayers of another. A zealous and prompt observance of some outward act of worship was thought to be a sure means of recovering lost favour. The slightest movement of Samuel indicative of the non-reversal of the penalty only excited a spasmodic dread, without the slightest trace of any changed sentiment towards sin itself. And when no hope of avoiding the penalty remains, the only thought is to break his fall before his elders, and so save some civil advantage. This analysis, expressed in terms suitable to our times, will be found to hold good of multitudes whose conviction of sin is unattended with the spirit of a true repentance. How different the conviction that accompanies true repentance! Then, “I have sinned” has a deep, unutterable meaning. Forgiveness is then not the mere release of life from suffering and loss, but a restoration of the soul to the joy of personal reconciliation with a holy Father. No thought of excuse is ever entertained, but “against thee, and thee only, have I sinned and done this evil,” is the sincere confession of a broken and contrite heart. The soul is so filled with self-loathing, and so agonised in being far from God, that it thinks not of punishment and position among men, and can only go direct to God and plead, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Contrast Simon Magus (Act 8:24) and Felix (Act 24:25; Psa 51:1-19.; Luk 15:1-32.).
III. ITS CONSEQUENCES. Saul, though convinced of sin, was practically an unchanged man. He was, after his pleading with Samuel, and after Samuel’s kindly act of consoling his poor blind heart by joining in worship, as fond of his own self-will as before. No spiritual change being wrought, no remission of penalty was ever possible. On his knowledge of what was Saul’s radical evila heart out of all sympathy with God’s holinessand of its continuance, did God resolve to provide for Israel another king. The Strength of Israel is not dependent on existing arrangements or human beings for the maintenance of his authority and accomplishment of his purposes. Saul as a king was ruined. His defective conviction was of no avail. It should be urged on all that a mere admission of sin and effort to be free from its punishment are of no avail. Loss of all that is deemed precious must ensue. Only repentance of the heart will serve. This is sure to lead away from all false means of deliverance to him who is exalted to give remission of sins.
General lessons:
1. A spirit of blended firmness and kindness should influence us in the discharge of unwelcome duties.
2. We should be careful not to encourage men in their self-delusions.
3. Respect for an office and consideration for social relations should enter into our treatment of offenders.
1Sa 15:32-35
Painful duties.
The facts are
1. Samuel summons Agag into his presence and hews him in pieces.
2. Samuel departs from Saul, and though mourning for him, no longer holds any official connection with him. The effect of Saul’s disobedience on the people would have been disastrous were the original command to be in any way evaded; and, therefore, though it was no part of the prophet’s ordinary functions to act as executioner, Samuel so far deviated from his usual course, and put his feelings under restraint, as to slay the captive king. There could be no mistake of the imperativeness of the Divine command when the people saw Samuel perform on the body of the king an act symbolical of the utter destruction of the enemies of God. The act itself, as also the occasion of it, must have given pain to the prophet’s mind. The subsequent suspension of relations with Saul was the natural result and formal expression of God’s rejection of him. Any other line of conduct would be open to serious misinterpretation. Samuel naturally was grieved in thus setting his ban on one for whom he had taken such pains, and in whose successful career he himself was deeply interested. But duty is above personal feeling.
I. HUMAN IMPERFECTION GIVES OCCASION FOR THE DISCHARGE OF PAINFUL DUTIES. Samuel is not the only one who has had to discharge solemn duties with a sorrowful heart.
1. There are instances recorded in Scripture.
(1) Of men. It was not without pain that Moses broke away from the associations of the home of Pharaoh’s daughter, where he had from childhood been treated with consideration and kindness. Nathan could not but put constraint on his feelings when he exposed the sin of one for whom he had cherished the profoundest respect (2Sa 12:7-14). See the case of the apostles (Act 5:1-10; Act 9:23-29; Rom 9:1-3; Php 3:5-8).
(2) Of Christ. It was as much beside his usual course as for Samuel to slay Agag when the gentle Saviour made a scourge and drove the money changers from the temple (Joh 2:15). There was evident sorrow of heart running through the terrible denunciations and forebodings which duty required him to utter over Capernaum, Jerusalem, and the scribes and Pharisees. His leaving Nazareth and never returning, after the cruel rejection of his word, must have been, considering his associations with the place, a duty as painful almost as the revelation to his disciples that one of their number would betray him (Luk 4:28-30; Luk 22:21-23). And may we not say that it will not be without a tone of sadness, more marked than any that entered into Samuel’s demand for Agag, that Christ, the great Judge, will on the day of judgment say to those who once heard his call of mercy and scorned it, “Depart from me.”
2. There are instances recurring, in modern life. On some is imposed the sorrowful duty of rebuking friends for disgraceful deeds, or of administering chastisements which cause more pain to the chastiser than to the chastised, or of enforcing with bleeding heart the rigorous rules of Church discipline upon persons once honoured and beloved. Samuel is but one of a host who have to assert Divine authority, moral order, and the interests of the community at the cost of much personal suffering.
II. SUCH DISCHARGE OF PAINFUL DUTIES IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE SUPREMACY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. The emotional element is strong in life. Personal considerations have, wisely and usefully, great weight in regulating actions. But it was profound regard for right that enabled Samuel to rule every feeling of his nature and subordinate it to the ends of justice, and therefore of benevolence. The same is seen in every kindred instance. It is indicative of a healthful moral condition where regard for right is dominant. Love, tenderness, pity are useful, powerful elements in a moral character; but they cease to be strictly moral when they operate as mere feelings apart from the guidance and control of righteousness. This looking high above personal relations to the requirements of a universal equity is the sublimest form of conduct.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
1Sa 15:1-9. (GIBEAH.)
A probationary commission.
1. The fidelity of Saul to the principle of his appointment, viz. obedience to the will of Jehovah, was once and again put to the test. He had been tried by inaction, delay, and distress, which became the occasion of his being tempted to distrust, and the use of his power for his own safety, in opposition to the word of God (1Sa 13:11). He had been tried by enterprise, encouragement, and the expectation of brilliant success, which became the occasion of his being tempted to presumption in entering rashly upon his own ways, and adopting “foolish and hurtful devices” for conquest and glory, independently of the counsel of God (1Sa 14:19, 1Sa 14:24). He must now be tried by victory, power, and prosperity. Having chastised his enemies on every side (1Sa 14:47), his assured success becomes the final test of his character and fitness to rule over Israel.
2. The temptations of Saul may he compared with those of others, and especially with the three temptations of Christ (Mat 4:1-10; Luk 4:1-12), which are “an epitome of all the temptations, moral and spiritual, which the devil has contrived for man from the day of his first sin unto this very hour.” The antecedents in both cases, the circumstances under which the temptations occurred, the principles to which they appealed, the inducements which they presented, the means afforded for their resistance, and their result, are all suggestive. Where the first king of Israel failed the last King of Israel prevailed, and whilst Saul was rejected, Jesus was perfected, and “crowned with glory and honour” (Luk 22:28, Luk 22:29; Heb 2:10, Heb 2:18).
3. The commission of Saul to execute judgment upon the Amalekites was brought to him by Samuel, whose authority as the prophet of the Lord he never called in question, however much he may have acted contrary to his directions. After Saul exhibited a determination to have his own way, Samuel seems to have exerted little influence over him. At the battle of Michmash the high priest Ahiah was his only spiritual counsellor. It became more and more evident that he wished to establish a “kingdom of this world,” like the surrounding heathen kingdoms, in opposition to the design of God concerning Israel, which the prophet represented and sought to carry into effect; and it was inevitable that, with such contrary aims, a conflict should arise between them. “The great prophet’s voice brings him a new commission from his God, and preludes it by a note of very special warning: ‘The Lord sent me,’ etc. This tone of adjuration surely tells all. It speaks the prophet’s judgment of his character, of prayers and intercessions, of days of watching and nights of grief for one he loved so well, as he saw growing on that darkening countenance the deepening lines of willfulness. The prophet sees that it will be a crisis in that life history with which by God’s own hand his own had been so strangely entwined? The commission was
I. DIVINELY APPOINTED (1Sa 15:1).
1. When a communication enjoining the performance of any action comes unquestionably from God. it should be unhesitatingly obeyed. His authority is supreme, his power is infinite, and his commands are right and good. It does not follow that everything he directs men to do in one age is obligatory on all others in every age. But some things he has undoubtedly enjoined upon us all.
2. When such a communication is made with peculiar directness and solemnity, it should be obeyed with peculiar attention and circumspection, for important issues are involved in its faithful or faithless observance. “if thou hast failed in other things, take heed that thou fail not in this.”
3. When special privilege and honour have been bestowed upon men by God they are placed under special obligations of obedience to him. “Though thou wast little in thine own sight,” etc. (1Sa 15:17).
II. JUSTLY DESERVED by those against whom it was directed (1Sa 15:2)”the sinners the Amalekites” (1Sa 15:18).
1. Some sins are marked by an unusual degree of criminality and guilt. Like the people of Israel, the Amalekites were descendants of Abraham (Amalek being the grandson of EsauGen 36:12, Gen 36:16); but they attacked them at Rephidim on their way through the desert, and strove to annihilate them (Exo 17:8-16); they lay in wait for them secretly and subtly, and smote the hindermost, the feeble, the faint and weary, and “feared not God” (Deu 25:17-19). Their conduct was ungenerous, unprovoked, cruel, and utterly godless.
2. Special sins are perpetuated in families and nations and increase in intensity. The Amalekites were hereditary, open, and deadly foes of Israel (Num 14:45; Jdg 3:13; Jdg 6:3). They lived by plunder, and were guilty of unsparing bloodshed (1Sa 15:33). Some fresh act of cruelty may have shown that they were “ripe for the judgment of extermination.”
3. Sinners long spared and persisting in flagrant transgression bring upon themselves sudden, signal, and overwhelming destruction. If judgment is pervaded and limited by mercy, mercy has also limits beyond which it does not pass, and they who despise it must perish. Men may forget what God has spoken (Exo 17:14); but he remembers it, and fulfils his word at the proper time. “Injuries done to the people of God will sooner or later be reckoned for.” Impenitent sinners “treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath” (Rom 2:5). It accumulates like a gathering thundercloud or an Alpine avalanche (Luk 11:50, Luk 11:51), and it frequently comes upon them by ways and means such as they themselves have chosen. The Amalekites put others to the sword and spared not; they must themselves be put to the sword and not be spared. The moral improvement of inveterate sinners by their continuance on earth is sometimes hopeless, and their removal by Divine judgment is necessary for the moral improvement and general welfare of other people with whom they are connected, and teaches valuable lessons to succeeding ages.
III. FULLY EXPRESSED (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:18). The will of God is made known in different forms and with various degrees of clearness, and some men, whilst acknowledging their obligation to obey it, have sought to justify themselves in the neglect of particular duties on the ground of their not having been fully directed. But this could not be the case with Saul, whose commission was
1. Imperative; so that there could be no excuse for evasion. “Go and smite Amalek.”
2. Plain; so that its meaning could not be mistaken, except by the most inattentive and negligent of men. “Utterly destroy (devote to destruction). Fight against them until they be consumed.”
3. Minute; so that no room was left for the exercise of discretion as to the manner or extent of its fulfilment. It required simple, literal obedience, such as is now required in many things. “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”
IV. ZEALOUSLY COMMENCED (1Sa 15:4, 1Sa 15:5, 1Sa 15:7). The “journey on which he was sent” (1Sa 15:18) was entered upon by Saul with something of the same energy and zeal which he had formerly displayed against the Ammonites, but the deterioration which had since taken place in his character by the possession of power soon appeared.
1. The work to which men are called in the way of duty sometimes bears a close affinity to their natural temperament and disposition.
2. Men may appear to others, and even to themselves, to be very zealous for the Lord whilst they are only doing what is naturally agreeable to themselves. “Come with me,” said Jehu, “and see my zeal for the Lord” (2Ki 10:16, 2Ki 10:31). “But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel.” Saul of Tarsus, like Saul of Gibeah, appeared to be fighting for God when he was really fighting against him.
3. The real nature of their zeal is manifested when the requirements of God come into collision with their convenience, pleasure, ambition, or self-interest. Then the hidden spring is laid bare.
V. UNFAITHFULLY EXECUTED (1Sa 15:8, 1Sa 15:9). “Spared Agag, and the best of the sheep,” etc; “and would not destroy them.” “He hath turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (1Sa 15:11).
1. There may be the performance of many things along with the neglect or refusal to perform others of equal or of greater importance. Saul was “a type of those who are willing to do something as against the world and on behalf of Christ, but by no means willing to do all that they ought to do.” Herod “did many things, and heard John gladly” (Mar 6:20), but he would not give up his ruling passion.
2. Disobedience in one thing often manifests the spirit of disobedience in all things. It shows that the heart and will are not surrendered to the Lord, and without such a surrender all else is worthless. In Saul’s sparing Agag and the best of the sheep, etc, we have “a melancholy example of sparing sins and evils that should be slain, and sheltering and harbouring them under false pretences by unworthy pleas and excuses.”
3. The love of self is the supreme motive of those who refuse to obey God. Saul was actuated by covetousness (verse 19), worldly mindedness (Mat 4:9; 1Jn 2:15, 1Jn 2:16), and vainglorious pride, which are only different forms of the love of self. “Behold, he set him up a monument, and is gone about (as in a triumphal procession), and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal” (verse 12), intending probably to make a display of the royal captive for his own glory; perhaps to make him a tributary prince and a source of profit. “Pride arising from the consciousness of his own strength led him astray to break the command of God. His sin was open rebellion against the sovereignty of the God of Israel; for he no longer desired to be the medium of the sovereignty of Jehovah, or the executor of the commands of the God king, but simply wanted to reign according to his own arbitrary will” (Keil).D.
1Sa 15:5, 1Sa 15:6. (THE WILDERNESS OF JUDAS.)
Come out from among them.
The Kenites were descendants of Abraham (Gen 25:2; Num 10:29; Jdg 1:16) like the Amalekites, but they were unlike the latter in character and conduct. Many of them were incorporated with Israel; others, whilst standing in friendly relationship to them, lived in close contact with “the sinners the Amalekites.” They may be regarded as representing those who are “not far from the kingdom of God,” but imperil their salvation by evil companionship. In this message (sent by Saul, perhaps, according to the direction of Samuel) we notice
I. THE PERIL OF UNGODLY ASSOCIATION. It is not every association with irreligious persons indeed that is to be deprecated (1Co 5:10), but only such as is unnecessary, voluntary, very intimate, and formed with a view to personal convenience, profit, or pleasure rather than to their improvement (Gen 13:12). This
1. Destroys the good which is possessed.
2. Conforms to the evil which prevails (Psa 1:1; Rev 18:4).
3. Involves in the doom which is predictedcertain, terrible, and imminent. The ban has been pronounced (1Co 16:22; 2Th 1:9), and it will ere long be executed. “A companion of fools shall be destroyed” (Pro 13:20).
II. THE OPPORTUNITY OF EFFECTUAL ESCAPE, which
1. Is afforded by the mercy of God, of which the message spoken by man is the expression.
2. Shows the value which he sets upon even the least measure of kindness and piety. “Ye showed kindness,” etc. (1Sa 15:6). Moral goodness, like moral evil (1Sa 15:2), tends to perpetuate itself. God honours it by the blessing which he causes to follow in its track, he desires its preservation and perfection, and hence he says, “Destroy it not” (Isa 65:8).
3. Offers a certain, great, and immediate benefit. “Come out from among them and be separate, saith the Lord, and I will receive you” (2Co 6:14-18).
III. THE NECESSITY OF IMMEDIATE SEPARATION.
1. This requires decision, self-denial, sacrifice, and effort.
2. Nothing else can avail (Eph 5:11).
3. And every moment’s delay increases danger.
“Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain” (Gen 19:17). “Be wise today, ’tis madness to defer.”D.
1Sa 15:10, 1Sa 15:11. (RAMAH.)
Samuel’s intercession for Saul.
The recorded instances of Samuel’s praying are of an intercessory character (1Sa 7:9; 1Sa 8:6, 1Sa 8:21; 1Sa 12:18, 1Sa 12:23). The last of them is his intercession for Saul. He appears to have been told by God in a dream of the result of the probationary commission which had been given to the king. Agitated and distressed, and not yet clearly perceiving it to be the fixed purpose of God (1Sa 15:29) that Saul should no longer reign over Israel as his recognised servant and vicegerent, Samuel gave himself unto prayer, if thereby he might avert the calamity. Respecting his intercession, consider
I. ON WHOSE BEHALF IT WAS MADE. Chiefly, doubtless, on behalf of Saul, though not without regard to the nation, on which his rejection seemed likely to produce a disastrous effect. Intercession should be made for individuals as well as communities. “Satan hath desired to have you,” said he who is the perfect example of intercessory prayer, “but I have prayed for thee” (Luk 22:32). There were many things in Saul calculated to call it forth.
1. His good qualities, exalted position, and intimate relationship to the prophet.
2. His grievous sin (1Sa 15:11, 1Sa 15:19, 1Sa 15:23), exceeding his previous transgressions.
3. His great dangerfalling from his high dignity, failing to accomplish the purpose of his appointment, losing the favour and help of Jehovah, and sinking into confirmed rebellion and complete ruin. “It repenteth me that I have made Saul king; for he is turned back from following me” (1Sa 15:11, 1Sa 15:35). When a change takes place in the conduct of man toward God, as from obedience to disobedience, it necessitates a change of God’s dealings toward him (otherwise he would not be unchangeably holy), and this “change of his dispensation” or economy (Theodoret) is called his repentance. It is not, however, the same in all respects as repentance in men. No change in him can arise, as in them, from unforeseen events or more perfect knowledge, seeing that “his understanding is infinite;” yet, on the other hand, as in their repentance there is sorrow, so also in hissorrow over those who turn from him, oppose his gracious purposes, and bring misery upon themselves (Gen 6:6; Jdg 10:16); and of this Divine sorrow the tears and agonies of Christ are the most affecting revelation.
II. IN WHAT SPIRIT IT WAS MADE.
1. Holy anger against sin, and against the sinner in so far as he has yielded himself to its power, arising from sympathy with God and zeal for his honour (Psa 119:126, Psa 119:136, Psa 119:158).
2. Deep sorrow over the sinner, in his essential personality, his loss and ruin; not unmingled with disappointment at the failure of the hopes entertained concerning him. Sorrow over sinners is a proof of love to them.
3. Intense desire for the sinner’s repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. “And he cried unto the Lord all night” with a loud and piercing cry, and in prolonged entreaty. The old home at Ramah, which had been sanctified by parental prayers and his own incessant supplications, never witnessed greater fervour. Wonderful was the spirit of intercession which he possessed. Well might the Psalmist, in calling upon men to worship the Lord, single him out as pre-eminent among them that “call upon his name” (Psa 99:6). But still more wonderful was the spirit which was displayed by the great Intercessor, who often spent the night in prayer, and whose whole life was a continued act of intercession, closing with the cry, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Would that more of the same spirit were possessed by all his disciples!
“We are told
How much the prayers of righteous men avail;
And yet ’tis strange how very few believe
These blessed words, or act as were they true.”
III. TO WHAT EXTENT IT AVAILED.
1. Not to the full extent he desired. Saul did not repent, neither was he exempted from the sentence of rejection. The relation of the sovereignty of God to the will of men is inexplicable. How far the Almighty may, by special and extraordinary grace, subdue its opposition we cannot tell. But he has conditioned the general exercise of his power by the gift of freedom and responsibility, he does not destroy or recall the gift; and the power of human resistance to the Divine will is a fearful endowment. There are stages of human guilt which would be followed by the wrath of God “though Moses and Samuel stood before him” (Jer 15:1). “There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it” (1Jn 5:16). “The sin, namely, of a wilful, obstinate, Heaven daring opposition to the ways of God and the demands of righteousness, and which, under a dispensation of grace, can usually belong only to such as have grieved the Spirit of God till he has finally left thema sin, therefore, which lies beyond the province of forgiveness” (Fairbairn, ‘Typology,’ 2:341).
2. Yet, doubtless, to obtain many benefits for the transgressor, in affording him space for repentance and motives to it. Who shall say how many blessings came upon Saul in answer to Samuel’s intercession for him?
3. And to calm the soul of him who prays, to make known the will of God to him more clearly, to bring him into more perfect acquiescence with it, and to strengthen him for the duty that lies before him. “And he arose early to meet Saul in the morning” (1Sa 15:12).
1. How great is the privilege and honour of intercessory prayer.
2. Since we know not who are beyond the reach of Divine grace, we should never cease to intercede for any.
3. If intercession does not avail to obtain all that it seeks, it does not fail to obtain invaluable blessings.D.
1Sa 15:12-21. (GILGAL.)
Excuses for disobedience.
1. Samuel met Saul at Gilgal. It was a sacred spot, and a well known scene of important events in former time and in more recent years. There the kingdom had been established (1Sa 11:15), and Saul “had solemnly pledged him and the people to unconditional obedience.” There also he had been previously rebuked and warned (1Sa 13:13). And thither he repaired ostensibly to offer the sacrifices of thanksgiving for victory, really to make a boastful display and confirm his worldly power. How strangely and intimately are particular places associated with the moral life of individuals and nations!
2. The interview (like the former) appears to have been held in private. The sentence of rejection was heard by Saul alone, and long kept by him as a dreadful secret. Yet it was probably surmised by many from his breach with Samuel, and was gradually revealed by the course of events. The sacred history was written from a theocratic point of view, and indicates the principles of which those events were the outcome.
3. The appearance of Samuel was an arraignment of the disobedient king before the tribunal of Divine justice. Blinded in part and self-deceived, he made an ostentatious profession of regard for the prophet (1Sa 15:13), and with the assumption of perfect innocence and praiseworthy obedience uttered “the Pharisee’s boast””I have performed the commandment of Jehovah.” His subsequent confession proved the insincerity of his declaration. His disobedience was crowned with falsehood and hypocrisy. When formally called to account (1Sa 15:14), he forthwith began to justify himself and make excuses for his conduct, such as transgressors are commonly accustomed to make. They were
I. EXCEEDINGLY VARIED. He
1. Attributes to other persons what cannot be denied to have occurred, and seeks to transfer to them the blame which is due to himself. “They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen” (1Sa 15:15). So spoke Adam and Eve at the commencement of human transgression and human excuses (Gen 3:13). On a former occasion, when desirous of having his own way, he had not been so considerate of their wishes or so compliant (1Sa 14:24, 1Sa 14:39, 1Sa 14:45). “If this excuse were false, where was the integrity and honour of the monarch? If it were true, where was his devotion and obedience? And whether true or false, how utterly unworthy did it prove him of continuing the servant and viceroy of the King of Israel” (Le Bas).
2. Protests good intentions, and even religious and commendable motives. “The people spared the best to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God;” whereby he seeks to gain the approval of the prophet, but betrays his own inward alienation from the Lord, for he cannot truly say “my God” (Mat 23:14); and whilst he has regard to the outward ceremonies of the law, he knows not (or wilfully disregards it) that by the law the sacrifices of “devoted” things were altogether prohibited (Deu 13:15; Num 31:48).
3. Professes his faithful obedience. “And the rest we have utterly destroyed.” Agam and again he declares his innocence (1Sa 15:20, 1Sa 15:21), and insinuates, that instead of being reproved by the prophet, he ought to be commended by him for his zeal.
4. Asserts complete readiness to meet whatever charge may be preferred against him. “Say on” (1Sa 15:16). “See how sin is multiplied by sin. The transgressor of God’s command stands forth as the accuser of the people, the speaker of gross falsehood. The spirit of disobedience evoked as with the rod of an enchanter those other agents of iniquity from their lurking place; and lo! they sprang forth to do his bidding. Verily their name was legion, for they were many” (Anderson, ‘Cloud of Witnesses,’ 2:350).
II. FAITHFULLY EXPOSED. Samuel’s fidelity, moral courage, and dignity, mingled with something of bitter disappointment and sorrowful resentment, are specially noteworthy. He
1. Points to incontestable fact. “What is this bleating of sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of oxen which I hear?” (1Sa 15:14). It flatly contradicts thy statement, reveals thy sin, and exposes thy excuses. Between it and thy duty there is a contradiction which no explanation can remove. Sin cannot be wholly concealed. “God knows how to bring it to light, however great the care with which it may be cloaked.” He was convicted of it by the voices of the animals which he had spared. And “it is no new thing for the plausible pretensions and protestations of hypocrites to be contradicted and disproved by the most plain and undeniable evidences.
2. Checks the multiplication of vain excuses. Stay (1Sa 15:16); proceed no further in thy endeavour to justify thyself. “And I will tell thee,” etc. When the voice of truth, of conscience, and of God speaks, it must perforce silence all other voices.
3. Recalls the requirements of the Divine commission (1Sa 15:18), which had been kept out of sight and evaded in the attempts made in self-defence. “Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites” (see 1Sa 15:3).
4. Reveals the motives of outward conduct (1Sa 15:19), viz. self-will, pride (1Sa 9:21), avarice, rapacity, “love of the world” (Col 3:5; 2Ti 4:10), rebellious opposition to the will of Jehovah, and daring ambition to reign independently of him. In all this Samuel sought to rouse the slumbering conscience of the king, and lead him to see his sin and repent. If even yet he had fallen upon his face and given glory to God, there might have been hope. But the reiteration of his previous assertions, his repudiation of what was laid to his charge, and his blindly pointing to his main offence (“and have brought Agag the king of Amalek”) as an evidence of his fidelity and zeal, showed that he was insensible to reproof. What should have humbled him served only to harden him in rebellion and obstinacy. And nothing was left but his rejection. His excuses were –
III. UTTERLY FUTILE, sinful, and injurious. They
1. Failed of their intended effect.
2. Increased his delusion, and prevented the light of truth from shining into his mind.
3. Deepened his guilt in the sight of Heaven.
4. Brought upon him heavier condemnation. “As he returned with his victorious troops the prophet met him. That sorrow stricken countenance, round which hung the long Nazarite locks, now whitened by the snows of ninety years, pale and worn with the long night’s unbroken but ungranted intercession, might have told all. Now the thundercloud, which began to gather fourteen years before, breaks and peals over the sinner’s head. ‘Stay,’ is the sad and terrible voice as it breaks through the cobweb limits of self-deception and excuse, ‘and I will tell thee what the Lord said to me this night,’ etc ‘The people took of the spoil,’ etc.the very utterance of dark superstition and mean equivocation. Then the lightning came. The prophet’s voice, gathering itself up into one of those magnificent utterances which, belonging to another and a later dispensation, antedate the coming revelation, and are evidently launched forth from the open ark of the testimony of the Highest, said, ‘Hath the Lord,'” etc. (‘Heroes of Hebrews Hist.’).D.
1Sa 15:22, 1Sa 15:23. (GILGAL.)
The sentence of rejection.
“Hath Jehovah (as much) delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of Jehovah?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to give heed than the fat of rams.
For (like) the sin of divination is rebellion,
And (like) an idol and teraphim is obstinacy.
Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah,
He hath rejected thee from being king.”
The crisis has now fully arrived. The aged prophet confronts the self-deceived king, whom he looks upon as no longer reigning as servant of Jehovah, in consequence of his endeavour to rule according to his own will and pleasure, though in connection with the outward forms of the religion of Israel. He has striven in vain to turn him from his way, and can henceforth only regard him as a rebel against the supreme Ruler. Inasmuch as Saul, in seeking to justify himself, showed that he estimated moral obedience lightly in comparison with ritual worship, Samuel first of all asserts the incomparable superiority of the former to the latter. He then declares that disobedience is equivalent to heathenism and idolatry, against which Saul, in offering sacrifices to Jehovah and other ways, exhibited such zeal. And, finally, he pronounces, as a judge upon a criminal, the sentence of his rejection. “There is a poetical rhythm in the original which gives it the tone of a Divine oracle uttered by the Spirit of God, imparting to it an awful solemnity, and making it sink deep into the memory of the hearers in all generations” (Wordsworth). Notice
I. THE PARAMOUNT WORTH OF OBEDIENCE, considered in relation to offerings and sacrifices and other external forms of worship (1Sa 15:22).
1. It is often less regarded by men than such forms. They mistake the proper meaning and purpose of them, entertain false and superstitious notions concerning them, and find it easier and more according to their sinful dispositions to serve God (since they must serve him somehow) by them than in self-denial and submission to his will. It is indeed by no means an uncommon thing for those who are consciously leading a sinful life to be diligent and zealous in outward religious worship, and make use of the fruit of their disobedience “to sacrifice unto the Lord,” imagining that it will be pleasing to him, and make compensation for their defects in other things.
2. It is absolutely necessary in order that they may be acceptable to God. The spirit of obedience and love is the soul of external services of every kind, and without it they are worthless. “To love him with all the heart is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mar 12:33). The one ought never to be disjoined from the other, but it is often done; and they are set in contrast to each other. “If we were to say charity is better than church going, we should be understood to mean that it is better than such church going as is severed from charity. For if they were united they would not be contrasted. The soul is of more value than the body. But it is not contrasted unless they come into competition with one another, and their interests (although they cannot in truth be so) seem to be separated” (Pusey, ‘Minor Prophets,’ Hos 6:6). “The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination” (Pro 21:27).
3. It is incomparably superior to them, considered as needful and appointed modes of serving God (apart from the “wicked mind” with which they are sometimes observed). Because
(1) The one is universal; the other is partial, and really included in it.
(2) The one is moral, the other ceremonial. It is a “weightier matter of the law.”
(3) The one is of a man himself, the willing sacrifice of his own will; the other of only a portion of his powers or possessions. And “how much better is a man than a sheep!”
(4) The one is essential, being founded upon the natural relation of man to God; the other is circumstantial, arising from man’s earthly and sinful condition. “Angels obey, but do not sacrifice.”
(5) The one is the reality, the other the symbol.
(6) The one is the end, the other the means. Sacrifice is the way of the sinner back to obedience, and the means of his preservation therein. Even the one perfect sacrifice of Christ would not have been needed if man had been obedient. Its design is not merely to afford a sufficient reason for the remission of punishment in a system of moral government, but also to restore to obedience (Tit 2:14).
(7) The one is temporary, the other is eternal. The sacrifices of the former dispensation have now been abolished; and how much of the present form of Divine service will vanish away when we behold the face of God! But love and obedience will “never fail.” Since obedience is thus the one thing, the essential, more important than anything else, it should hold the supreme place in our hearts and lives.
II. THE IDOLATROUS CHARACTER OF DISOBEDIENCE (1Sa 15:22). In proportion to the excellence of obedience is the wickedness of disobedience.
1. It is a common thing for men to make light of it, especially in actions to which they are disposed, or which they have committed, being blinded by their evil desires and passions.
2. In the sight of God every act of disobedience is exceedingly hateful. “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Hab 1:13) without punishing it.
3. In the light of truth it is seen to be the same in principle as those transgressions on which the severest condemnation is pronounced, and which are acknowledged to be deserving of the strongest reprobation. It is probable that Saul had already taken measures to put down the “sin of divination” (1Sa 28:9), and prided himself upon his zeal against idolatry; but he was acting in the spirit of that which he condemned, and was an idolater at heart. For he was turning away from God, resisting and rejecting him, and making an idol of self, which is done by all who (in selfish and superstitious fear or desire) seek divination (witchcraft) and trust in an idol (“which is nothing in the world”) and teraphim (household godsch, 1Sa 19:13). “The declinations from religion, besides the privative, which is atheism, and the branches thereof, are threeheresies, idolatry, and witchcraft. Heresies when we serve the true God with a false worship; idolatry when we worship false gods, supposing them to be true; and witchcraft when we adore false gods, knowing them to be wicked and falsethe height of idolatry. And yet we see, though these be true degrees, Samuel teacheth us that they are all of a nature, when there is once a receding from the word of God” (Bacon, ‘Advancement of Learning’). “All conscious disobedience is actual idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god” (Keil). “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1Jn 5:21).
III. THE JUST CONDEMNATION OF THE DISOBEDIENT (1Sa 28:18).
1. The punishment of the disobedient is the appropriate fruit of his disobedience. “Because thou hast rejected me,” etc. Saul wished to reign without God, and have his own way; what he sought as a blessing he obtains as a curse. Sinners say, “Depart from us,” etc. (Job 21:14); and the most terrible sentence that can be pronounced upon them is, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Psa 6:8; Mat 7:23). “God rejects no one unless he is before rejected by him.”
2. It involves grievous loss and miserythe loss of power, honour, blessedness; the experience of weakness, reproach, unhappiness, which cannot be wholly avoided, even though mercy be afterwards found.
3. Judgment is mingled with mercy. Although Saul was discrowned as theocratic king, he did not cease to live or to reign as “legal king.” He was not personally and entirely abandoned. God sought his salvation to the last. “His rejection involved only this
(1) That God would henceforth leave him, and withdraw from him the (special) gifts of his Spirit, his counsel through the Urim and Thummim and by his servant Samuel; and
(2) that in a short time the real deposition would be followed by tangible consequencesthe kingly ruins would be destroyed, and the kingdom would not pass to his descendants (Hengstenberg, ‘Kingdom of God,’ 2:89).D.
1Sa 15:24-31. (GILGAL.)
Insincere confession of sin.
“I have sinned” (1Sa 15:24, 1Sa 15:30). On hearing the sentence of his rejection, Saul at length confesses his sin. The words of Samuel have some effect upon him, but not the full effect they should have had. For his confession does not proceed from a truly penitent heart (see 1Sa 7:6), and it is not followed either by the reversal of his sentence or the forgiveness of his sin. It was like that of Pharaoh (Exo 9:27), of Balaam (Num 22:34), and of Judas (Mat 27:4)springing from “the sorrow of the world, which worketh death” (2Co 7:10). Notice
I. ITS CHARACTERISTICS. It was made
1. Under the pressure of circumstances, rather than as the free expression of conviction. Confession comes too late when it is extorted by the demonstration of sin which can no longer be denied. Some men, like Saul, conceal their sin so long as they can, and confess it only when they are compelled.
2. From the fear of consequences (1Sa 15:23, 1Sa 15:26), and not from a sense of the essential evil of sin. This is the most common characteristic of insincerity. As Saul confessed his sin from the fear of losing his kingdom, so do multitudes from fear of death, and live to prove their insincerity by their return to disobedience. “There are two views of sin: in one it is looked upon as a wrong; in the other as producing lossloss, for example, of character. In such cases, if character could be preserved before the world, grief would not come; but the paroxysms of misery fall upon our proud spirit when our guilt is made public. The most distinct instance we have of this is in the life of Saul. In the midst of his apparent grief, the thing still uppermost was that he had forfeited his kingly character; almost the only longing was that Samuel should honour him before the people. And hence it comes to pass that often remorse and anguish only begin with exposure” (Robertson).
3. To the servant of God, and to gain his approval, and not to God, and to obtain his favour. “Thy words” (1Sa 15:24). “Now therefore” (as if on the ground of his confession he could justly claim pardon), “I pray thee, pardon my sin” (1Sa 15:25). Many confess their sin to men without confessing it to God, and attach to their confession a worth that does not belong to it.
4. With an extenuation of guilt, rather than with a full acknowledgment of its enormity. “I feared the people, and obeyed their voice” (1Sa 15:24, 1Sa 15:15). He returns to his first excuse, which he puts in a different form. If what he said was true, what he had done was wrong (Exo 23:2). There is a higher law than the clamour of a multitude. True penitents do not seek to palliate their sin, but make mention of its greatness as a plea for Divine mercy (Psa 25:11).
5. With an entreaty for public honour, rather than in deep humiliation before God and man. “Honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of the people, and before Israel” (1Sa 15:30) “If Saul had been really penitent, he would have prayed to be humbled rather than to be honoured” (Gregory).
6. With repeated promises of rendering worship before the Lord, rather than a serious purpose to obey his voice (1Sa 15:25, 1Sa 15:30). He does not seem even yet to have laid to heart the truth which had been declared by the prophet; and he probably looked upon public worship by sacrifice as something peculiarly praiseworthy, and sought, by urging Samuel to remain and offer it, to promote his own honour in the sight of the people, and not as the expression of penitence and the means of forgiveness “The most prominent feature in the character of Saul was his insincerity.” And yet, in his repeated promises to worship the Lord, and his urgent entreaties of Samuel, there was doubtless an element of good that might not be despised (1Ki 21:29).
“The blackest night that veils the sky,
Of beauty hath a share;
The darkest heart hath signs to tell
That God still lingers there.”
II. ITS CONSEQUENCES. In the language and conduct of Samuel there was
1. A reiteration of the sentence of rejection. Thrice it was declared that Jehovah had determined that Saul should no longer reign under his sanction and by his aid (1Sa 15:26, 1Sa 15:28). Although he may not have known all that the sentence involved, he felt that its import was alarming. An insincere confession of sin darkens the gathering cloud instead of dispersing it.
2. A confirmation of it by an impressive sign, the occasion of which is afforded by the sinner himself (1Sa 15:27). Thereby it comes home to him with greater force.
3. An intimation of the transfer to a better man of the dignity which has been forfeited by sin. This was the second time that an announcement of a truly theocratic king was given (1Sa 12:14); and whilst it showed that the Divine purpose could not be defeated, however it might be striven against, it must have been peculiarly painful to Saul. The dreadful secret was a constant burden to him, and when he recognised the man in whom the prediction was about to be fulfilled, it excited his envy and hatred toward him. When any one is not right with God, every favour shown to another fills him with grief and wrath (Gen 4:5).
4. A declaration of the unchangeable purpose of God. “The Strength” (Prerpetuity, Confidence, Refuge, Victory) “of Israel will not lie nor repent,” etc. (1Sa 15:29). Saul evidently thought of him as capable of acting in an arbitrary, capricious, and inconstant manner, like himself; but, inasmuch as he formed his purposes with .perfect knowledge, and acted on immutable principles, and there was no real change In the heart of the transgressor, there could be no reversal of his sentence. “He cannot deny himself” (2Ti 2:12). If in some things his purposes toward men appear to change because men alter their relative position toward him (as the sun appears to change by the rotation of the earth, causing day and night), in others they abide the same forever, and he who sets himself against them must be overthrown. It is now certain that he cannot again be a theocratic king; but his renewed importunity, in which, perchance, notwithstanding its apparent selfishness, the prophet sees a gleam of hope, is followed by
5. An indication of pity toward the foolish and fallen king. “And Samuel returned after Saul; and Saul worshipped Jehovah” (1Sa 15:31). May he not even yet be led to true repentance? Although the birthright is given to another, there is a blessing for him who weeps and prays (Gen 27:38-40). His request is granted. He has what he desires and is prepared to receive. He is still the king after the people’s heart. He shall continue such. The sentence shall not be published, nor any special effort be put forth for his dethronement. It would result in general confusion. The just and merciful purposes of God toward the people in giving him for their king are not yet fulfilled, and they will slowly ripen to their accomplishment.
6. An exhibition of judgment upon an obstinate offender (1Sa 15:32). One of the reasons, doubtless, why Samuel “turned again after Saul” was that he might execute on Agag the Divine sentence which he had faithlessly remitted. “The terrible vengeanca executed on the fallen monarch by Samuel is a measure of Saul’s delinquency.” It is also a solemn warning to him of the doom which sooner or later comes upon every impenitent and persistent transgressor.
Observations:
1. It is not confession of sin, but the spirit in which it is made, that renders it acceptable to God.
2. Sincerity is the foundation of a truly religious character.
3. Though mercy long lingers over the sinner, yet if it be despised doom comes at last.D.
1Sa 15:29. (GILGAL.)
The unchangeable One of Israel.
“And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent:
For he is not a man, that he should repent”
The word rendered Strength in the A.V. (netsach, here used for the first time) has a varied signification (splendour, victory, truth, confidence, perpetuity, etc.), but is used in this place in the sense of steadfastness, constancy, and unchangeableness. Jehovah, the prophet says, is the Immutability, or unchangeable One, of Israel. He is not like man, inconstant, unreliable, changeable. He is not such an one as Saul imagined him to be; does not vacillate in his thoughts, feelings, or purposes; but acts on immutable principles, and performs the word which he has spoken; and hence the sentence of rejection cannot be reversed. His unchangeableness is often declared in the Scriptures. It is implied in the name of Jehovah. It was dwelt upon by Moses (Deu 32:4, Deu 32:18, Deu 32:31), perceived by Balsam (Num 23:19), and asserted by Hannah in her song of praise (1Sa 2:2). And although it is often disbelieved or misinterpreted, it is a source of strength and consolation to all by whom it is properly understood and realised. Observe that it
I. ACCORDS WITH APPARENT CHANGEABLENESS in
1. The creation of the world and the varied operations of his hand. It is not stoical indifference (without affection) nor absolute quiescence (without activity). He is the living God, and freely exercises his boundless power in producing infinite changes. “Over all things, animate and inanimate, flows the silent and resistless tide of change.” But whilst he is “in all, above all, and through all,” he is separate and distinct from all; and the creation of the world and all the mutations of matter and force are only expressions of his eternal and unchangeable thought. The physical universe is the garment in which the Invisible clothes himself and manifests himself to our apprehension (Psa 102:25-27; Psa 104:2).
2. The revelations of his character and the successive dispensations of his grace. These are not contrary to one another. They are simply the clearer and more perfect manifestations of him who is always “the same;” adapted to the need and capacity of men. God deals with them as a parent with his children, affording them instruction as they are able to bear it.
3. The relations in which he stands to men, and his diversified dealings with them. They sometimes appear the opposite of each other. At one time he approves of individuals and nations, and promises them manifold blessings, whereas at another he condemns and punishes them. Hence he is said to repent. But the change arises from a change in men themselves. The Glory of Israel always shines with undimmed lustre; but they shut their eyes and turn their backs upon the light, so that to them it becomes darkness. And it is his unchangeable holiness that necessitates this result; for if he were “altogether such an one as themselves,” they might expect (like Saul) to enjoy his favour whilst they continued in sin. “With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt show thyself froward” (Psa 18:26).
II. DENOTES REAL UNCHANGEABLENESS in
1. The perfections of his character. Change is an element of imperfection, and no such element can exist in the absolutely perfect One. With him “there is no variableness, neither shadow caused by turning” (Jas 1:17). “In him there is no darkness at all” (1Jn 1:5). And it is “impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18).
2. The principles of his government: wisdom, truth, equity, goodness, etc. In these things he delights, and from them he never departs. They stand like rocks amidst a sea of perpetual change. They are more immutable than the laws of nature, being the foundation on which those laws rest, and inseparable from the Divine character. “The word of our God” (in which they are expressed) “shall stand forever” (Isa 40:8; Isa 51:6). “Till heaven and earth pass,” etc. (Mat 5:18).
3. The purposes of his heart, formed in perfect knowledge of all that will take place, and effected in harmony with the principles before mentioned. Some of these purposes are hidden (Deu 29:29). Others are revealed, and include the general conditions of peace and happiness, and the results of their observance or neglect (promises and threatenings), also particular events, occurring either independently of the free action of men, or in connection with it, whether in the way of opposition or cooperation, as, e.g; the setting up of a theocratic kingdom, the advent and death of the Messiah (Act 4:27, Act 4:28), and his universal reign. “The counsel of the Lord standeth forever” (Psa 33:10, Psa 33:11; Pro 19:21; Isa 46:10; Jer 4:28). “I am Jehovah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Mal 3:6). “When we find predictions in Scripture not executed, we must consider them not as absolute, but conditional, or, as the civil law calls it, an interlocutory sentence. God declared what would follow by natural causes, or by the demerit of man, not what he would absolutely do himself. And though in many of these predictions the condition is not expressed, it is understood” (see Jer 18:7, Jer 18:8; Eze 33:13, Eze 33:14; Jon 3:4; Jon 4:2).
III. INCITES TO HUMAN CONSTANCY in
1. Faith. He never disappoints the trust that is reposed in him. His covenant with his people is firm and sure; “for the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed,” etc. (Isa 54:10). “All the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen” (2Co 1:20). What an incentive is thus afforded to each believer, and the whole Church, to “abide in him”! “Whose faith follow, etc. Jesus Christ (is) the same yesterday, and today, and forever; (therefore) be not carried about (like a ship driven by varying winds) with divers and strange doctrines; for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace” (Heb 13:7-9).
2. Love. Only the unchangeable One can be a true, satisfying, and enduring rest of the affections; for all earthly objects change and pass away, and must leave the immortal spirit desolate. His unchanging love should keep our love to him and to each other burning with a steady flame (Joh 13:1, Joh 13:34; Jud Joh 1:21).
3. Righteousness.
(1) Which consists in conformity to the constant obedience of Christ to the righteous and unalterable will of the Father.
(2) Which is faithfully assured of enduring blessedness (Rev 22:14). “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1Jn 2:17).
(3) But without which there will be an irrevocable loss of the most glorious crown and kingdom. The persistently rebellious dash themselves to pieces against the unchangeable holiness and justice of God.D.
1Sa 15:32, 1Sa 15:33. (GILGAL.)
The execution of Agag.
Agag was put to death, perhaps, by the hand of Samuel: more probably by other hands under his order, for it is common to speak of official persons doing what they simply command to be done (Joh 19:1). “In ancient time persons of the highest rank were employed to execute the sentence of the law (Jether, the eldest son of Gideon, Doeg, Benaiah). Sometimes the chief magistrate executed the sentence of the law with his own bands” (Paxton’s ‘Illustrations,’ 4:171). The act was one of great severity. It should, however, be remembered that
1. The Amalekite king had committed great atrocities (1Sa 15:33), and was the chief representative of cruel and irreconcilable enemies of Israel.
2. Amalek lay under a ban of extermination which had been pronounced by Jehovah (Exo 17:14; Num 24:20), and was now required to be fully carried into effect. Samuel acted in obedience to a higher will than his own; not from personal revenge, but in his public capacity, doing what Saul (from no feelings of humanity) had failed to do, and giving honour to Jehovah before his altar. “There must indeed have been inadequate ideas of the individuality of man and of the rights of human life before a dispensation could have been received which enforced wars of exterminationwars which would now be contrary to morality; for the reason that our ideas on the subject of human individuality and the rights of life are completely changed, and that we have been enlightened on these subjects, upon which the early ages of mankind were in the dark”.
3. The peculiar circumstances of the case necessitated some such exhibition of the authority and justice of Jehovah for the maintenance of the theocracy, and the reproof and warning of the people who had shared in the sin of their king. “Such a sinking age could be saved from imminent dissolution only by extreme severity. He who, however kindly disposed in other respects, was most direct and inexorable in carrying out what seemed urgently needed, he alone could now become the true physician of the times, and the successful founder of a better age” (Ewald). We have here –
I. A NOTORIOUS OFFENDER MEETING HIS JUST DOOM.
1. Although sentence upon an evil work is not speedily executed, it is not reversed. The long suffering of God waits, “as in the days of Noah” (2Pe 3:1-18 :20), when judgment was suspended for 120 years; but “he spared not the old world” (2Pe 2:5).
2. Justice requires that incorrigible sinners should be punished with significant severity. “As” (in the same manner as) “thy sword,” etc.
3. Death is naturally bitter to men, and especially to those who have heavy guilt upon their consciences. The last words of Agag were, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”
4. When sinners deem themselves most secure, then “sudden destruction cometh upon them.” Having been spared so long, he imagined that the danger was over, and little thought that the venerable prophet was the messenger of wrath. “The feet of the avenging deities are shod with wool, but they strike with iron hands.”
II. AN AMIABLE PROPHET CLOTHED WITH HOLY SEVERITY.
1. The more a man loves righteousness, the more intensely does he hate sin. “Ye that love the Lord, hate evil.” What woes were ever so terrible as those that fell from the lips of Christ?
2. A good man may inflict punishment on the wicked without feelings of personal revenge against them “Our Lord declared the inferiority of the legal position of the Old Testament not because the desire of retribution ought to be excluded from the religion of reconciliation, but because it ought not to predominate in it” (Thohlck).
3. When some fail to carry out the purposes of God, others are bound to make up for their defect, and sometimes to do things for which they do not seem well adapted, and which do not harmonise with their general character Kings 18:40). “When kings abandoned their duty God often executed his law by the prophets” (Grotius).
4. That which is severity to one must often be done, provided it be not contrary to justice, for the good of all.
III. AN OBSTINATE PEOPLE TAUGHT A SALUTARY LESSON.
1. No excuse can justify disobedience to the commands of God. Doubtless the people, if called to account, would have been as ready as Saul to offer excuses for the part they took in sparing Agag and the best of the sheep, etc.
2. They who fail to obey these commands deprive themselves of invaluable blessings. The sunshine of heaven is beclouded, and the sentence of rejection on their king, although at present little known, will ere long produce disastrous effects in them.
3. God’s work must be done, and if one refuses to do it, another is raised up for the purpose. As with individuals, so with nations (Num 14:21; Rom 11:22).
4. Those who, although the professed people of God, contend against his purposes must share the fate of his open enemies. “If ye shall still do wickedly ye shall be consumed, both you and your king” (1Sa 12:25).D.
1Sa 15:34, 1Sa 15:35. (GILGAL.)
A melancholy parting.
The interview between Samuel and Saul was now ended. “It was a fearful meeting; it was followed by a lifelong parting.” The earlier course of Saul (from the time the prophet met him in the gate at Ramah) was marked by modesty, prudence, generosity, and lofty spiritual impulses, and was one of brilliant promise. His subsequent course (from his first wrong step before the war of Michmash), although distinguished by external prosperity, was marked, by self-will, presumption, disobedience, and selfishness, and was one of rapid degeneracy. How must the prophet have lamented as he saw the wreck of that early brightened life!” On his part, more especially, the separation was
I. NEEDFUL. A good man is compelled to separate from those to whom he has given his counsel and aid
1. When from lack of sympathy and opposition of aim he can no longer effectively cooperate with them.
2. When he cannot hope to exert a beneficial influence upon them.
3. When his continuance with them affords a sanction to a course which he cannot approve. His parting’ is a condemnation of it, and is rendered necessary by truth and righteousness. “God’s ambassador was recalled from him; the intercourse of the God of Israel came to an end because Saul, sinking step by step away from God, had by continued disobedience and increasing impenitence given up communion with God” (Erdmann). “Had he spared this spiritual child, when to spare him would have been contrary to the fundamental law of the theocracy, the worst possible precedent would have been afforded for future ages by this first king” (Ewald).
II. RESPECTFUL. Samuel acceded to the request of Saul to honour him before the people; and although it is not stated how far he participated with him in worship, yet he evidently avoided an open and violent rupture with him, and gave him honour, as civil ruler, to the last. Respect is due “not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward,” on account of
1. The authority and power that may be intrusted to them in the providence of God (Rom 13:1).
2. The natural dignity of mangreat in ruin, capable of restoration, and susceptible to the influence of kindness or contempt. Jesus did not resent the kiss with which Judas betrayed him, but said, “Friend, wherefore comest thou hither?”
3. The requirements of social order and peace. Saul was even yet the best king the people were fit to receive, and the conduct of Samuel indicated the duty of submission, which, in the spirit of their king, they were not always disposed to render (1Sa 15:24; 1Sa 14:45).
III. SORROWFUL. “Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul.” With heavy heart and weary feet the old prophet took his way up from Gilgal to Ramah, and mourned for Saul, who, on the opposite hill of Gibeah, pursued his wilful way, bringing upon himself and Israel inevitable and overwhelming woe; alive, yet dead; so near, yet so completely lost.
1. What object is more mournful than a soul “going astray” from God?
2. What sorrow is too great at such a sight?
3. How vast is that Divine sorrow of which the human is the product and reflection! “And the Lord repented,” etc. The prophetic spirit is one of wide and deep sympathy at once with God and man, and it was perfectly possessed by “the Man of sorrows.” “Samuel mourned for Saul, but we do not hear that Saul mourned for himself.”
IV. FINAL. He “came no more to see Saul”gave him counsel no more as aforetime, which indeed was not desired; and he only saw him once again, when he forced himself into his presence (1Sa 19:24). When good men are compelled by the conduct of the wicked to separate from them, the parting
1. Deprives the latter of incalculable benefits, however lightly they may be estimated at the time.
2. Tends to increase the moral distance between them, and render the restoration of their intercourse more and more impossible.
3. Is certain to be hereafter bitterly but vainly regretted (1Sa 28:15, 1Sa 28:18). Oh, the sad and perpetual separations that are caused by sin! The paths of Samuel and Saul (like those of Moses and Pharaoh, Paul and Demas) may be compared to the courses of two ships that meet on the ocean, and sail near each other for a season, not without danger of collision, and then part asunder, the one to reach a “desired haven,” the other to make shipwreck and become a castaway.D.
1Sa 15:25; 1Sa 16:1-4. (RAMAH.)-Recalled to the path of duty.
“Go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite.”
1. The greatest and best of men experience seasons of sorrow, depression, and doubt, and sometimes fail in the fulfilment of duty. It was thus with Abraham, Moses, and Elijah, and with others in later ages. It was the same with Samuel, though to a less extent than almost any other. His grief for Saul was excessive. He surrendered himself to it without seeking the consolation and help by which it might be mitigated, and suffered it to interfere with the work which he might yet accomplish on behalf of Israel; and hence he was reproved by God. “The excellent prophet here displays something of human weakness. Samuel here looked on the vessel, made by the invisible hand of God himself, utterly broken and minished, and his emotion thereat shows his pious and holy affection; yet he is not without sin” (Calvin).
2. The failure of good men often appears in those things in which they are pre-eminently excellent. Samuel exhibited extraordinary sympathy with the purposes of God concerning his people, unquestioning obedience to every indication of his will, and strong faith, and hope, and dauntless courage in its fulfilment. Yet here we find him a prey to “the grief that saps the mind,” apparently hopeless and desponding, and smitten with fear like Elijah when “he arose and went for his life” on hearing the threat of Jezebel. “Such things would seem designed by God to stain the pride of all flesh, and to check all dependence upon the most eminent or confirmed habits of godliness” (A. Fuller). The strongest are as dependent on God as the feeblest.
3. A higher voice than that of their own troubled and fearful hearts speaks to men of sincerity, and in communing with it they are led into a clearer perception of duty and to gird themselves afresh for its performance. The “spirit of faith” regains its ascendancy over them. And in going forth to active service they find new strength and hope at every step. The night gives place to the morning dawn, and
“They feel, although no tongue can prove,
That every cloud that spreads above
And velleth love, itself is love
(Tennyson, ‘The Two Voices’).
Consider the way of duty, trodden by the good man, as
I. PRESCRIBED BY GOD, whose will is the rule of human life, and is
1. Indicated in many waysthe word of truth, providential circumstances, reason, and conscience, and “that awful interior light which the dying Saviour promised, and which the ascending Saviour bestowedthe Spirit of God.”
2. Sometimes obscured by frustrated effort, grievous disappointment, immoderate grief, desponding and doubtful thoughts (Mat 11:2, Mat 11:3; Act 18:9; Act 23:11).
3. Never long hidden from those who are sincerely desirous of doing it, and seek for the knowledge of it with a view to that end (1Sa 16:2, 1Sa 16:3; 1Ki 19:15).
II. BESET BY DANGER. “How can I go? If Saul hear of it, he will kill me.” The question was not simply an inquiry for direction, but also an expression of fear; and it may possibly have arisen from indications of Saul’s wilfulness such as afterwards appeared (1Sa 19:22).
1. Danger is sometimes formidable, even to the bravest of men.
2. It is exaggerated by despondency, doubt, and fear.
“Thy soul is by vile fear assailed, which oft
So overcasts a man, that he recoils
From noblest resolution, like a beast
At some false semblance in the twilight gloom” (Dante).
3. No danger in the way of duty is equal to that which will be certainly found in departing from it. “In the way of righteousness there is life, and in the pathway thereof there is no death.”
III. PURSUED WITH FIDELITY. “And Samuel did that which the Lord spake” (1Sa 16:4). His hesitation was only for a moment, and with further light his faith revived and was displayed in fearless devotion. Fidelity to duty
1. Demands the renunciation of self and many cherished plans and purposes.
2. Appears in trustful, practical, and unreserved obedience. Samuel went in dependence upon the promise, “I will show thee what thou shalt do,” etc.
3. Sometimes necessitates a prudent reserve. There was no deception in withholding a reason for the action directed, beyond that which lay on the surface of the action itself. To reveal it would be to defeat the end designed. And fidelity is sometimes best shown by silence.
IV. TERMINATING IN SAFETY AND HOPE.
1. Threatened danger is averted.
2. Promised guidance is obtained.
3. A brighter day dawns, and
“God’s purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour.”
Samuel returns to Ramah in peace, and with renewed zeal devotes his remaining days to the work of training a body of younger prophets (1Sa 19:20), whose influence, together with a change of dynasty, will save the nation and promote the establishment of the kingdom of God. “Let us ask ourselves whether the Jewish nation would have played any part as a ‘main propelling agency of modern cultivation,’ if its monarchy had been allowed to take the form which Saul would have given it, if he had made religion a creature of the kingly power, and war an instrument of rapine, and not of justice, and we shall see that Samuel’s view of the matter was the true one, and in accordance with the proper vocation of a prophet” (Strachey, ‘Jewish Hist. and Politics’).D.
1Sa 15:35. (RAMAH.)
Samuel a man of sorrows.
“Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul.” There are many kinds of sorrow in the world. One is natural, such as is felt by men in temporal affliction. Another is spiritual, such as is felt by a penitent for his sin. A third is sympathetic, benevolent, Divine, such as is felt by a godly man over the ungodly. “I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved.” Of this last Samuel had experience throughout his life (1Sa 3:15;. 1Sa 4:11; 1Sa 7:2; 1Sa 8:3, 1Sa 8:6), and more especially at the persistent transgression and irrevocable rejection of Saul. Observe of such sorrow, that
I. IT IS OCCASIONED BY A DEPLORABLE SIGHT. Look at it. A soul
1. Failing to fulfil the purpose for which it was made, and “coming short of the glory of God.”
2. Falling into degradation, misery, and woe. A ruined temple! A wandering star! (Jud 1Sa 1:13). A discrowned monarch! A despairing spirit! Oh, what a contrast between what it might have been and what it is here and will be hereafter!
3. Inciting others to pursue the same path.
II. IT IS AN EVIDENCE OF EXALTED PIETY, inasmuch as it shows
1. Genuine zeal for the honour of God, whose law is “made void,” whose goodness is despised, and whose claims are trampled in the dust.
2. Tender compassion toward men. “Charity to the soul is the soul of charity.”
3. Intense sympathy with the noblest of men, with the Son of God, and with the eternal Father himself. “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart,” etc. (Rom 9:1-3). “O that thou hadst known,” etc. (Luk 19:42). “O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments!” (Isa 48:18).
III. IT IS SOMETIMES IMPROPERLY INDULGED (1Sa 16:1), as
1. When it is mingled with feelings of personal disappointment and mortification, and of dissatisfaction with the ways of God.
2. When it is allowed to become a prolonged and all-absorbing emotion, to the exclusion of those considerations and feelings by which it ought to be modified and regulated.
3. When it produces despondency and fear (1Sa 16:2), weakens faith, and hinders exertion.
IV. ITS IMPROPER INDULGENCE IS DIVINELY CORRECTED. By means of
1. Gentle rebuke, indicating that it is useless, unreasonable, and reprehensible.
2. Clear and deep conviction of the over-ruling purpose of God, and unreserved submission to it. “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father,” etc. (Mat 11:25).
3. Renewed, benevolent, and hopeful activity.D.
HOMILIES BY D. FRASER
1Sa 15:31
Tried again and rejected.
God proves his servants, and does not show them the fulness of his favour and confidence till they have been tested. Abraham was tried and found faithful; so was Moses; so was David; so was Daniel. Abraham, indeed, was not without fault, nor Moses either. David once sinned grievously. But all of these were proved true at heart and trustworthy. Saul is the conspicuous instance in the Old Testament of one who, when called to a high post in Jehovah’s service, and tested therein again and again, offended the Lord again and again, and was therefore rejected and disowned.
1. The question on which the king was tested was the same as before. Would he obey the voice of the Lord, and rule as his lieutenant, or would he be as the kings of the neighbouring nations and tribes, and use the power with which he was invested according to his own will and pleasure? On this critical question the prophet Samuel had exhorted both Saul and the people when the monarchy was instituted. If the king erred, he could not plead that he had not been forewarned. The accepted principle of modern constitutional government is that the ruler exists and is bound to act for the public good, and not for his own aggrandisement or pleasure. At root this is the very principle which Samuel inculcated 3000 years ago. The Old Testament required a king to reign in the fear of the Lord, and loyally execute his will. The New Testament describes the ruler as a “minister of God for good.” Now the Divine will and the public weal are really the same, and the most advanced political principle of modern intelligence is no other than the old doctrine of the Bible. There is no Divine right of kings to rule as they think proper. That doctrine of base political subservience is opposed to both the spirit and the letter of the sacred writings. The king is for God, not God for the king. The king is for the people, not the people for the king. The voice of the people may not always be the voice of God, but the good of the people is always the will of God.
2. The test to which the king was new subjected was, like the former one, specific, and publicly applied. Would he obey the Lord in the extermination of Amalek or no? And he disobeyed. If there was one of all the Amalekite race who deserved to forfeit his life, it was the king, Agag, a ruthless chief, whose sword, as Samuel expressed it, had “made women childless;” yet him Saul spared when he showed no mercy to others. It was not at all from a feeling of humanity or pity. To have scrupled about shedding the blood of a hereditary foe would not have occurred to any Oriental warrior of the period. But Saul would reserve the royal captive to grace his triumph, and be a household slave of the king of Israel. It was the pride of the chiefs and kings of that age to reduce the princes whom they had conquered to slavery in their courts. Adonibezek is said to have kept seventy such captives, whose hands and feet he had mutilated to unfit them for war, and who, as slaves, gathered from his table. Besides Agag, the best of the sheep and cattle belonging to Amalek were spared by Saul and his army. They used their success to enrich themselves, and forgot that the sentence of God against that nation was the only justification of the war.
3. The Divine censure on the disobedient king was pronounced by Samuel. The prophet was deeply grieved. He had loved the young man on whose lofty head he had poured the sacred oil, and whose failure to fulfil the early promise of his reign had already caused him, if not much surprise, distress unfeigned. And Samuel was concerned for the nation. If the new government was so soon discredited, and Saul forfeited his kingly seat, what but anarchy could come upon Israel, and with anarchy, subjection, as before, to the Philistines or some other warlike nation of the heathen? The prophet fulfilled his commission, however painful; gravely reproved the king, brushed aside his excuses and evasions, and refused, not without a touch of scorn, his offered bribe of animals for sacrifice.
4. Samuel took occasion to declare that “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” These words contain the very quintessence of the testimony of the prophets; not Samuel only, but Hoses, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and in fact all the great teachers whom Jehovah sent to his ancient people. Sacrificial oblations could never be accepted in lieu of practical obedience, and a rebellious, wilful temper was as offensive to the Lord as any kind of idolatry. Priests and Levites were appointed for religious ceremonial, but the great function of the prophets was to maintain the supremacy of what is moral over what is ceremonial, and to lift up fearless voices for mercy and truth, judgment and righteousness, integrity and probity, reverence for Jehovah, and obedience to his revealed will. Such was the testimony of the Lord Jesus himself, as the greatest of prophets. He recognised and respected the sacrifices appointed in the law, but did not in his conversations or discourses dwell on them. His aim was to cause men to hear the word of God, and do it. And such is the message or burden of all New Testament prophets, and of those who know how to guide and teach Christians. To be lax and indulgent on questions of moral conduct, while strict about services and offerings to God and the Church, is the part of a false prophet. The true prophet, while witnessing to free forgiveness in the blood of Christ, will enjoin all who seek that forgiveness to cease to do evil and learn to do well, will faithfully declare to them that they cannot be kept in the love of God if they are not obedient to his word.
5. The behaviour of Saul under reproof betrayed a shifty, superficial character. He showed no real sense of sin, or desire of Divine forgiveness. David, during his reign, committed a more heinous offence against domestic and social morality than anything that Saul as yet had done; but he was pardoned and restored because when charged with the sin”Thou art the man”he confessed it, and excused not himself. And then he cried to God, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.” But Saul, when charged with disobedience, showed no shame or sorrow on its account. He at once put himself in a defensive attitude, stooped to subterfuge, laid the blame on others, had no feeling but a desire to escape consequences. He would propitiate the Lord and his prophet by sacrifices; but his former religious sensibility was now almost quite gone from him, and he was becoming, like Esau, a “profane person,” hard and godless. It is pitiful to see that the king looked no higher than to Samuel, and asked no more than that the prophet would pardon him, and favour him so far as to join with him while he publicly worshipped the Lord. Evidently his object was to have his credit upheld by the venerated presence of Samuel; and, on his repeating the request, the prophet thought fit to yield to his wish, probably to avoid the weakening of the royal influence, and the premature fall of the monarchy.
6. The rejection of Saul took no sudden effect. Gravely and sadly it was pronounced by Samuel; but it brought about no immediate catastrophe. None the less was it a sure and fatal sentence. We know that Saul was not dethroned. He had a long reign, and died on the battle field. But the process was already begun which led him to dark Gilboa, which led one better than him to Hebron and to Jerusalem; and the remainder of this book is occupied in showing how the Divine rejection of Saul took effect, and how the Lord brought forward and trained the son of Jesse for the kingdom. It is a thought full of solemnity, that a man may long keep his place and hold his own in Christian society who yet is rejected by the Lord, and is growing at heart more and more profane, till at last the evil spirit rules him instead of the good, and he dies as one troubled and God forsaken. The process may be long, but it is none the less tragical. May God keep us from the beginnings of declension, and from all excusing of our sins, or laying of the fault upon others I Lord, take not thy Holy Spirit from us!F.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
SECOND SECTION
The rejection of Saul for his disobedience in the Amalekite war
1Sa 15:1-35
1Samuel also [And Samuel] said unto Saul, The Lord [Jehovah] sent me to anoint thee to be [om. to be] king over his people,1 over Israel; now therefore [and 2now] hearken thou unto the voice of the words2 of the Lord [Jehovah]. Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, I remember [have considered3] that which [what] Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for [withstood4] him in the way, when Hebrews 3 came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy5 all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4And Saul gathered [summoned] the people together [om. together], and numbered them in Telaim,6 two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of 5Judah.7 And Saul came to a [the]8 city of Amalek, and laid wait9 in the valley.10 6And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So [And] the Kenites11 departed from 7among the Amalekites. And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until [as]12 8thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people [all the people he utterly 9destroyed] with the edge of the sword. But [And] Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings [secondrate],13 and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile13 and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
10Then came the word of the Lord [And the word of Jehovah came] unto Samuel, 11It repenteth me that I have set up [made] Saul to be [om. to be] king; for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And 12it grieved14 Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord [Jehovah] all night. And when [om. when] Samuel rose early15 to meet Saul in the morning, [ins. and] it was told Samuel,16 saying, Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set him up a place [monument]17 13and is gone about, and passed on [over], and gone down to Gilgal. And Samuel came to Saul,18 and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord [Jehovah]; 14I have performed the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah]. And Samuel said, What meaneth then [And what is] this bleating of the [om. the19] sheep 15in mine ears, and the lowing of the [om. the19] oxen which I hear? And Saul said, They20 have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice unto the Lord [Jehovah] thy God; 16and the rest we20 have utterly destroyed. Then [And] Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the Lord [Jehovah] hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
17And Samuel said, When [Though]21 thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord [Jehovah] anointed thee 18king over Israel? And the Lord [Jehovah] sent thee on a journey [way], and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until 19they be consumed.22 Wherefore, then, didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord [Jehovah], but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah]? 20And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea23 [om. yea] I have obeyed the voice of the Lord [Jehovah]24, and have gone the way which the Lord [Jehovah] sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and [ins. the Amalekites I] have 21utterly destroyed the Amalekites [om. the Amalekites]. But [And] the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed [things devoted to destruction (or, banned)] to sacrifice unto the 22Lord [Jehovah] thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the Lord [Jehovah] as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord [Jehovah]? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat 23of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry [For the sin of witchcraft is rebellion, and idolatry (or idols) and teraphim is stubbornness].25 Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord [Jehovah], he hath also [om. also] rejected thee from being king.
24And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] and thy words; because I feared the people and 25obeyed their voice. Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon [And now, pardon, I pray thee] my sin, and turn again [return] with me, that I may [and I will] worship the 26Lord [Jehovah]. And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee; for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord [Jehovah], and the Lord [Jehovah] hath 27rejected thee from being king over Israel. And as [om. as] Samuel turned about 28to go away, [ins. and] he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, The Lord [Jehovah] hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine that is better than thou. 29And also, the Strength26 of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man that 30he should repent. Then [And] he said, I have sinned; yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and turn again [return] 31with me, that I may [and I will] worship the, Lord [Jehovah] thy God. So [And] Samuel turned again [returned] after Saul; and Saul worshipped the Lord [Jehovah].
32Then said Samuel [And Samuel said], Bring ye hither [om. ye hither] to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately [cheerfully].27 33And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past. And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord [Jehovah] in Gilgal.
34Then [And] Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah 35of Saul. And Samuel came no more to see Saul [saw Saul no more] until the day of his death; nevertheless [for] Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord [Jehovah] repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1Sa 15:1-3. The divine commission to Saul to execute judgment on Amalek. 1Sa 15:1 is not to be connected chronologically with 1 Samuel 12. (Then.), but continues the narrative of chs. 13. and 14. The solemn reminder of Sauls royal anointing and of Samuels divine mission to that end refers not to 1Sa 11:15, but to 1Sa 9:15 to 1Sa 10:1. It points to the fact that the following commission is a divine command, communicated by the appointed organ, the prophet of God, and that the bearer of the royal office has here to perform a theocratic mission with unconditional obedience. The me stands first [such is the order in the Heb.Tr.] in order to give prominence to the official authority, as bearer of which Samuel must needs have felt himself obliged by Sauls past conduct to assert himself over against him.
1Sa 15:2. The Amalekites were a wild, warlike desert-people, dwelling south and south-west of Judea in Arabia Petra, descended from the same ancestor as the Edomites, and took their name from Esaus grandson Amalek (Gen 36:12; Gen 36:16; 1Ch 1:36). Comp. Joseph., Antiq. II. 1, 2, where this people is described as an Edomitic tribe, and their territory said to be part of Idumea. The mention of the country of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 is not in conflict with their derivation from Esaus grandson, for this (Hengst, Pent. II. 303 sq.) is merely a proleptical statement (comp. Winer, W. B. I. 51, Anm. 1).28 In the prophecy of Balaam (Num 24:20) it is expressly mentioned as the first of the heathen nations that opposed Israel as the Lords people, and whose destruction by Israel (comp. 1Sa 15:8) is foretold. The first hostile movement of this people is narrated in Exo 17:8 sq. Soon after Israels exodus from Egypt the Amalekites fell on their wearied rearguard in the desert of Rephidim, but were defeated by Joshua through Moses prayer, and were doomed to extermination by the divine command (1Sa 15:14; 1Sa 15:16). Gods command to Saul goes back to these first hostilities of the Amalekites (which were often afterwards repeated in their alliances with the Canaanites (Num 14:40 sq.), with the Moabites (Jdg 3:13), and with the Midianites (Jdg 7:12)), the Amalekites (according to 1Sa 15:33) having newly made an inroad, with robbery and murder, on the Israelitish territory.I have noted what Amalek did to Israel, that is, the whole series of Amalekite hostilities, the beginning of which is expressed in the following words: how he withstood him (to Heb. supply 29 as in 1Ki 20:12), because in Exo 17:14; Exo 17:16, Amalek is declared the doomed hereditary and deadly enemy of Israel. Comp. Deu 25:17-19.
1Sa 15:3. The complete extermination of the Amalekites, persons and property, as a righteous judgment of the holy God (as is intimated in the noted (considered) of 1Sa 15:2) is enjoined on Saul. The phrase put everything under the ban [this is the exact meaning of the Heb.; Eng. A. V.: utterly destroy,Tr.] is explained by the following parallel phrases to mean slaying, the inferior being put last in each member (Then.), and the both and expressing complete destruction without exception. [The Ban. The ban, of which we have here a notable instance, was an old custom, existing probably before Moses, but formulated, regulated and extended by him. In its simplest form it was the devotion to God of any object, living or dead. (The object thus devoted was called , Cherem, from , to separate, set apart from common use, and from the noun comes, according to Ewald, the Heb. Hiph. to make a thing cherem, put under the ban.) When an Israelite or the whole congregation wished to devote to God anything, man, beast or field, whether for the honor of God, or to get rid of an injurious or accursed thing, it was brought and offered to the priest, and could not then be redeemed (Lev 27:28)if living, it must be put to death. A deep consciousness of mans sin and Gods holiness underlay this law. The wicked thing, contrary to the spiritual theocratic life of Gods people, must be removed, must be committed to him who was the ruler and judge of the people. And so the custom had a breadth of use as well as of meaning in Israel which it never had in other ancient nations (Ew.). A city might be devoted (Deu 13:12-17), or a whole nation by vow of the people (Num 21:2), or by command of God (Exo 17:14). In such case all human beings and cattle were to be slain, all the spoil (houses, furniture, etc.) to be burned, the land was to lie for some time fallow, and other things to be given to the sanctuary. From this strict rule there were occasional deviations (Numbers 31; Jos 9:3-15), but on special grounds. To spare the devoted thing was a grave offence, calling down the vengeance of God. In later times the ban was, doubtless under prophetic direction, softened, and in the New Testament times the infliction of death had quite ceased.On this whole subject see Ew., Alterth. I. 101 sq. (1866), Herzog R. E., s. v. Bann, Comm. of Kalisch and Bib. Comm. on Leviticus 27.Tr.]
1Sa 15:4-9. How Saul performs this divine command.
1Sa 15:4. Saul summons the people (Heb. make them hear, the Pi. only elsewhere in 1Sa 23:8). The whole of the population fit for war (see the numbers in 1Sa 15:4) appears again in arms, because the powerful Amalekites could be overthrown and destroyed only by the full force of Israel.Telaim is the same with Telem, a southern city of Judah (Jos 15:24), lying, therefore, near the Amalekite territory, which agrees with Sauls choice of the place for his mustering of the army. The reading of the Sept.: in Gilgal, is an unfortunate gloss, suggested by chs. 11 and 12. [On the numbers see Text. and Gram. The separate mention of Judah points possibly to a post-Solomonic date for the chapter. See Erdmanns Introduction, p. 40.Tr.]30 1Sa 15:5. The name of the city of the Amalekites, against which Saul advanced, is not known.31 Saul lay in ambush in the valley. To this Thenius objects that nothing more is said of an ambush, and that Saul went openly to work; but the first remark is of no importance, since it is not intended to give a full account of the battle; and as to the second, Saul was able to treat with the Kenites in the manner described the better because he had concealed his army in a gorge. According to the reading conjectured by Thenius: and he set the battle in array ( , after the Arabic [and Targ.Tr.]: he set the people in array there), Saul, already prepared for battle, must have addressed himself openly to the Kenites. But neither this declaration to the Kenites, who were living in the midst of the Amalekites, nor the withdrawal of the former from their midst could have occurred as related, if the Israelitish army had stood over against the Amalekites ready for battle. The latter would certainly not have looked quietly on while Saul withdrew the Kenites from them to himself.The Kenites, a small tribe of the northwestern Arabian nomadic peoples (in Canaan as early as Gen 15:19), had shown friendship and kindness to the Israelites after their departure from Egypt (Num 10:29). Moses brother-in-law, Hobab (Jdg 1:16), belonged to them, and under his guidance it was that this kindness was shown. According to Jdg 1:16 these friendly Kenites dwelt south of the city Arad in the wilderness of Judah, that is, near the Amalekites, and near their original seat. Thence they had descended up to Sauls time farther into the Amalekite territory. Some of them settled in the north, as Heber, husband of Jael (Jdg 4:11; Jdg 4:17). Another branch of the Kenites, hostile to the Israelites and in alliance with the Edomites, who dwelt in the caves of Arabia Petra, and are without ground regarded by Hengstenberg (Bileam, p. 190 sq.) as a totally distinct people, are set forth in Num 24:21 as the object of Gods inevitable judgment. The Kenites here mentioned (they appear also in the history of David as friends of Israel, 1Sa 27:10; 1Sa 30:29) are withdrawn from the punishment which was inflicted on the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:7. The defeat of the Amalekites reached from Havilah to Shur. Havilah, according to Gen 25:18, the boundary of the Ishmaelites, probably, therefore in the south-east on the border of Arabia Petra and Arabia Felix (according to Strabo 16, 767, the region of the Chaulotans, which he puts between the Nabati and the Agri). Shur is the present Wilderness of Jifar, the portion of the Arabian desert bordering on Egypt, into which the Israelites entered after the exodus (Exo 15:22). Saul thus smote the Amalekites throughout their territory from southeast towards the west and northwest.[Havilah and Shur. Great difficulty attaches to the name Havilah on account of the different mentions of it in the Old Testament. It belongs to a Cushite (Gen 10:7) and to a Shemitic Joktanite (Gen 10:29), perhaps thus denoting a region in southern Arabia occupied by these two peoples. The statement in Gen 2:11 throws no light on the locality. It is difficult certainly to assign to this tribe (the Amalekites) a limit so far south, and we should then have to suppose a place different from those mentioned in the passages cited, and have almost no data for an opinion.Shur is certainly in the border of Egypt; but it is not easy to fix its exact position from the Bible-statements about it (Gen 16:7; Gen 20:1; Gen 25:18; 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8; Exo 15:22-23). It seems to be here not a wilderness, but a town or fortress. As the word means wall, and Ebers has brought out the fact that a wall extended in ancient times across the north-eastern boundary of Egypt (whence the name Mizraim, the enclosed or fortified), it is suggested by Wellhausen that the place took its name from the wall near which it was.Tr.]
1Sa 15:8. Agag (the fiery, according to the Arab.) seems to have been the official name of their kings, Num 24:7 (as Pharaoh among the Egyptians, and Abimelech among the Philistines).That Saul did not slay Agag, but took him alive, is to be referred, from what we know of Saul, either to a fit of weak lenity and forbearance, or to a vain desire to hold the king of this people prisoner (5. Gerlach).32 The whole people, that is, speaking generally. Some survived of course; the Amalekites appear afterwards, 1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1; 2Sa 8:12. Their complete annihilation is mentioned in 1Ch 4:43.
1Sa 15:9. Besides the best of the people, king Agag, the best of the property, that is, among this people herds of course, was spared; for selfish reasons Saul and the people were unwilling to destroy the best of the booty. Besides the best of the small and large cattle, there is specially mentioned the best of the , that is, the animals which held the second rank (so the Sing. denotes the second after the king, 2Ch 28:7, the second of brothers, 1Ch 5:12; 1Sa 8:2; 1Sa 17:13, and the Plu. goblets of the second rank in value, Ezr 1:10). According to this it must be supposed that the herds were divided into groups according to their value. Perhaps, however, the word also means (Kimchi and Tanchum) animals of the second birth, which were thought better than the others.[So Rdiger in Ges. Thes., while Gesenius says incorrectly that they were inferior. Bochart (Hieroz. 2, 43, pp. 429431) renders bidentes, that is, animals which had shed, or were about to shed, their two long teeth, at which time they were in their prime. Other meanings have been assigned to the word, none satisfactory.Tr.]Fat lambs also, fattened on the meadows, are specially mentioned. The Sept. reading vineyards (and so Ew.) is to be rejected, because, as Then, rightly says, we have here to do with things that could be carried along. Thenius and Ewald [and Eng. A. V.] read (with Chald., Syriac, Arabic) failings (), instead of second-class (as in the Heb.); but this is suspicious on account of the ease of the change33And they spared everything good. From this comprehensive expression, and especially from the following statement of what they destroyed, it is evident that the idea of the word best is a loosely-defined one. Namely, it expressly says, they destroyed all property [that was worthless.Tr.]34
1Sa 15:10-23. By command of God Saul is called to account by Samuel for his disobedience, and his excuse being set aside, is by God condemned and rejected.
1Sa 15:10. Samuel receives a revelation from God concerning Sauls God-opposing conduct. The psychological basis of this revelation is Samuels exact acquaintance with the condition of Sauls heart, which was already poisoned and rent by self-seeking and self-will. The way and the form in which the word of the Lord came to Samuel is not pointed out. But it is probable from what follows (Ew.) that it was by a dream. The content of the divine word Isaiah 1) the declaration: It repenteth me that I have made Saul king.The repentance of God is the anthropopathic expression for the change of the divine procedure into the opposite of what the holy and righteous will of God had determined under the condition of holy and righteous conduct by men, when on mans side there has been a change to the opposite of this condition without repentance. Theodoret: Gods repentance is His change in administration.35 The repentance of God always presupposes a change for the worse in mans conduct towards God, whose holiness and justice must consequently assume another relation to man; hence it cannot exist without accompanying sorrow in the divine love over the sin of man, which necessitates a change in Gods action on mans life; but it is too narrow a definition to regard it (as Keil does, on Gen 6:6 and here) merely as an anthropopathic expression for the sorrow of the divine love over the sin of man. Saul indeed remains the legitimate king of Israel according to the divine appointment. But, since he has not remained the humble servant of God, as which he was called to be king, God the Lord, with the deep sorrow of His holy love, must now regard and treat him as an apostate who is in conflict with the truth of the theocratic kingdom. This declaration of Gods repentance itself involves the judicial decision of God, which, however, is here not yet expressly announced; rather this divine word contains 2) only the ground of Gods repentance: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandment [literally, word]. The first clause denotes internal defection from sincere fellowship of life with the Lord under the figure of a way, in which the walk after God, that is, in His retinue in fellowship with him, is performed in humble subjection to his will and command; Saul has not observed Samuels exhortation turn not aside from after the Lord (1Sa 12:20), and has gone his own way away from God. The last clause: and has not kept my word, is the external form of the defection: disobedience in the non fulfilment of the divine command. He has not performed my word, that is, has fallen away, has not reached permanence, fulfilment.A two-fold effect is produced by this revelation of God on Samuels heart.To Samuel was kindled, namely, anger (supply , anger, as in Gen 18:30; Gen 31:36; 2Sa 19:43, and many other places). That it was holy anger is clear from what follows; for Samuel could pray in his anger. The object, of his anger was first, obviously, Sauls defection and disobedience, and then the therein-involved violation of the Lords honor and thwarting of His purposes. To render: was sorry (J. Schmid: doluit Samueli) is inadmissible, because the expression always denotes anger.[On the difficulty here see Text, and Grammat.Tr.]But to anger at Sauls disobedience and frustration of his holy mission Samuel adds prayer for Saul, mighty, fervent: he cried to the Lord, and persistent, unremitting: the whole night.The object of the prayer was doubtless not release from the fulfilment of the divine command (Ew.), but the exemption of Saul from the sentence of rejection and the forgiveness of his disobedience. But the hearing of such a prayer is conditioned on the sincere repentance of him for whom it is made. This condition did not appear in Saul, but rather its opposite. Therefore the picture of the priestly mediator, in which character Samuel represents Saul before the Lord, changes into that of the judging prophet, who represents the Lord over against Saul.[Abarbanel says, that Samuel was angry and displeased because he loved Saul for his beauty and heroism and as his own creature whom he had made king, and that he prayed all night because God had not revealed to him Sauls sin, and he wished to know why sentence was pronounced against him.Tr.]
1Sa 15:12. Having thus learned immediately from God by this revelation his divine mission to Saul, Samuel after this grievous night goes early to meet Saul. On the way he learns that Saul had come to Carmel (Jos 15:55), now Kurmul with extensive ruins dating from ancient times and the Middle Ages, southeast of Hebron [ten miles] on the mountains of Judah (comp. 1Sa 25:2; 1Sa 27:3); that he had there set up a monument in commemoration of this great victory over Amalek. (, the hand, here denotes a monument of victory, as in 2Sa 18:18, because this, like the hand, directs attention to what it denotes.) The him [=to him] is in the whole connection significant, as it brings out the selfish principle which actuated Saul. He does not give the honor to God the Lord by unconditional obedience, but he sets up a monument in his own honor.( [is turned, gone about] cannot mean went in solemn procession (Buns.), nor are we to read: and turned the chariot, as Then, does after the Sept. whose translators did not understand the , passed on.) He passed over, namely from Carmel and the neighboring mountain across the mountains of Judah, and then descended into the Jordan-valley to Gilgal (1Sa 13:4). Saul went to Gilgal to celebrate his victory with offerings. Thenius and Ewald insert after Gilgal (from Sept. and Vulg.) the words: And Samuel came to Saul, and behold, he was offering a burnt-offering to the Lord, the firstlings of the spoil, which he brought from Amalek, supposing (but without sufficient ground) that they fell out of the Heb. because the following sentence begins with the same words. It is nowhere hinted that, according to the view of the narrator, Samuel and Saul had intended to meet on Mount Carmel (Then.). The Sept. introduced Sauls offering after the analogy of 1Sa 13:8 sq. in order to conform this second great sin of Saul to the first.
1Sa 15:13. Samuel took the long journey to Gilgal to meet Saul. In the place where he had solemnly pledged Saul and the people to unconditional obedience (chap. 12), he now executes judgment for disobedience to the divine will. The psychological and ethical momenta of this procedure are clearly exhibited in the following deeply moving narrative. After all that had occurred between Samuel and Saul (131Sa 15:1), Samuels mere appearance must have been an accusation and a warning of conscience for Saul. Conscious of his sin, which, however, he will not confess,disregarding it, and deceiving himself with all the arts of a heart entangled in hypocrisy and lies, and alienated from the Lord,he anticipates Samuels accusation with his defence: 1) he not only meets, but anticipates, Samuel with forced friendliness with the greeting: Blessed be thou of the Lord; and 2) straightway adds the assurance: I have performed the commandment [word] of the Lord.In this he in one respect tells the truth; for he had broken the power of the Amalekites. But in another respect he tells a lie; for from selfish motives he had failed to carry out the command of complete annihilation, as given in the word of the Lord. 1Sa 15:14. Saul is convicted of falsehood by the voices of the animals which he has spared contrary to Gods command. Samuels mode of citing them against him by the question: What mean these voices? has an air of holy humor and cutting irony.
1Sa 15:15. Saul continues to advance in falsehood and hypocrisy, receding more and more from the truthfulness of a confession of sin (which was his duty) by presenting a two-fold defence: 1) The people spared, he declares; he does not blame himself. And yet in 1Sa 15:9 it is said: Saul and the people spared. He seeks to excuse himself as blameless by transferring the blame to the people. And, suppose the people had spared the good oxen, yet he, the general, had permitted it; the people dared not do it against his will. [Comp. the peoples obedience to Saul in 1Sa 14:24; 1Sa 14:34; 1Sa 14:40.Tr.] 2) He seeks to extenuate and to justify his transgression of the divine command by pleading the holy purpose of sacrificing to God. Whether now this was thought of or not, in any case it is hypocrisy, by which Saul seeks to excuse himself and the people. [Bib. Comm.: Every word uttered by Saul seems to indicate the break-down of his moral character. One feels that after this scene, Saul must have forfeited his self-respect. Bishop Sanderson (quoted by Wordsworth in loco), in his Lectures on Conscience, II. 13, exposes the futility of the pretence that good intention is a right rule of conscience and a good guide of conduct.Tr.]
1Sa 15:16. Samuel interrupts him with the exclamation: Stay! ( Imper. apoc. Hiph. of , desist, cease.) To the false and hypocritical speech of Saul he solemnly and sharply opposes what the Lord said to him in the night. (Instead of plu. read sing.)36
1Sa 15:17-19 follows the powerful, crushing address of Samuel, hurled on Sauls conscience with the might of Samuels conviction that he now spoke as prophet solely in the name and stead of the Lord to the deep-fallen king.
First comes the reminder of his elevation from lowliness to the high dignity of royalty by the favor of the Lord. The question wast thou not? sharpens for Sauls conscience the sting concealed in this recollection. The sentence is variously construed. Kimchi renders: though thou seemedst to thyself too little and weak to curb the people, yet wast thou the head, and shouldst as such have done thy dutywholly against the connection, and under the incorrect supposition that Samuel received Sauls excuse. Kster refers the expression hypothetically to the future: if thou wouldst henceforward be humble, thou shouldst. But against this is the reference to the past fact: the Lord anointed thee. Others (S. Schmid, De Wette, Keil) render: when thou wast little, thou wast made. But must retain its meaning, if. Here, as in many places (Jdg 13:16; Amo 5:22; Jer 5:2; Jer 15:1; Jer 22:24; Job 9:15; Jos 1:18), it=although. Ges. 306, 2, 9 [Conants Transl., 155, 2 g.Tr.]; Ewald, 355, 1, 6 [1 b].37 Though thou wast little in thine own sight.The reference here to Sauls own words, 1Sa 9:21, is beyond doubt. It is the humiliating reminder to the haughty Saul of the low position whence he had been elevated to the headship of Israel, and of the modesty and humility which he then possessed. In thine eyes. Samuel here indirectly points to the haughtiness of his heart as the deepest ground of his defection from the Lord. The Lord anointed thee.That was Gods gracious act by which he had been raised to this height, and had incurred the most sacred obligation to be obedient to the Lord and to keep the people obedient to Him. On this foundation Samuel bases his exhortation in respect to Sauls guilt in this particular case.
1Sa 15:18. The Lord sent thee on the [properly a] way and said: Go, etc.It was a distinctly marked way which Saul was to go according to the Lords command, after him; it was a divine mission which he was obediently completely to fulfil. The sinners the Amalekites.These words give the reason why this people was to be destroyed and not spared, because they strove to annihilate Gods people and kingdom.38 All this ought to have pledged thee to obedience. The question: Why didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord?with the accusation which it containsconnects itself all the more emphatically with the reference to the duty of obedience which the Lord Himself had laid on him. The following words characterize Sauls conduct as based on avarice [didst fly upon the spoil]. The fly, as in 1Sa 14:32, expresses eagerness, passionate craving.39
1Sa 15:20-21. Saul hardens himself still farther: 1) in deceitful self-justification, positively denying the fault attributed to him (following exactly the order of Samuels specifications), and affirming with emphasis () that he had gone the appointed way and fulfilled the mission assigned him, witness of which was the captive Agag and the annihilated Amalekites; 2) in vain and hypocritical excuse, which is a mere repetition of the above pretext of the peoples act and their purpose to sacrifice to the Lord the spared oxen as firstlings of the spoil. This might have seemed a pious act, as in the similar case in Num 31:48 sq.; but, as all the goods of the Amalekites had been devotedthat is, consecratedto the Lord, and the living things must be killed, no burnt-offering (according to Lev 27:29) could be made with them (see Keil). Saul evades the fact that the command of God is: Every thing is to be put under the ban (1Sa 15:3). The words: to the Lord thy God are a sort of captatio benevolenti, an attempt to curry favor [others see here, perhaps not so well, an implied censure of Samuel, as if Saul would say: you rebuke me for serving the God whom you profess to serve.Tr.]
1Sa 15:22-23. Samuels answer tears away all the cloaks with which Saul had striven to cover his sin, and lays bare the deepest ground of evil in his heart. Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?To give color to his open disobedience to the Lord, Saul adduced his purpose to make an offering. In opposition to this is the meaning of Samuels words: offering, brought with such a disobedient heart, cannot be well-pleasing to God, as is the obedience of the will, which subjects itself unconditionally to the will of the Lord, and brings itself as offering. External offerings are an abomination to the Lord when there is lacking the heart full of obedient love, the humble consecration of the whole man. The same thought was repeatedly expressed by Samuel (1Sa 12:14; 1Sa 12:20; 1Sa 12:24) in his exhortations to the people and their king, with the threat of destruction for both, if they should fail in this time-offering and service in faithful, hearty obedience to the will and commands of God. This fundamental ethical truth is affirmed, with unmistakable reference to these words of Samuel, in the classical passages Psa 50:8-14; Psa 51:18-19; Isa 1:11; comp. 1619; Mic 6:6-8; Hos 6:6; Jer 6:20.In the following words: To obey is better than sacrifice, the thought takes a new turn: apart from what alone is well-pleasing to God, only an obedient disposition of mind is in itself something good, the offering, without such a disposition, is not a good thing, has no moral value. The fat of rams, that is, the pieces of fat offered on the altar [see Leviticus 1 and many other places.Tr.].
1Sa 15:23. The thought is carried on as follows: As the outward work of offering without answering devotion of heart and life to God with obedient mind has no moral value, and is not an object of the divine good-pleasure, so disobedience and the thence-resulting rebellion and defiant self-dependence is similar in essence to, stands on the same moral plane with the outward wickedness of witchcraft, that is, divination in the service of anti godly demon-powers (Keil), and of idolatry. [Eng. A. V. iniquity] is nothingness, then false god and idol, Isa 66:3, idol-worship, Hos 10:3. Teraphim [Eng. A. V. idolatry] are household-gods as oracle-deities and dispensers of good fortune, Gen 31:19. Comp. Keil, Archol., 90 [and Smiths Bib. Dict., Arts. Teraphim and Magic, Commentaries of Kalisch, Delitzsch, Lange and Bib. Comm. on Gen 31:19. Samuels decided condemnation of teraphim-worship (which he clearly did not regard as a permissible form of Jehovah-worship) is to be noted.Tr.].For the sake of emphasis the predicates in both clauses stand before the subjects. As in divination and idolatry the living God is denied and rejected, so is rebellion and stubbornness a defection from the Lord and a rejection of the Lord40 This is the ground () of the declaration in 1Sa 15:22. Now follows the sentence thus grounded, with sharp brevity concluding this part of the scene: Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath rejected thee from being king.41Rejected by the Lord, Saul is now himself abandoned to his self-love and his passions (Berl. Bib.).
1Sa 15:24-31. Sauls vain striving with Samuel in false penitence, and Samuels sentence of rejection. 1Sa 15:24. Saul confesses: I have sinned.To judge from his previous obstinate refusal to acknowledge his wrong, Samuels earnest and powerful address must have worked on his inner life like a circle of fire ever closing in upon his conscience, so that he saw himself forced to abandon his attempts at palliation and frankly make this confession of sin. The whole preceding narrative shows that it was extorted from him partly by the unsparing revelation of his lies and hypocrisy and the undeniable exhibition of his heart-rooted disobedience, partly by the judicial decision respecting the unavertible consequences of his defection and disobedience. A confession of sin induced by resulting evil and punishment is often no expression of true penitence. And it is not this with Saul; for though he now confesses that he has transgressed the commandment of the Lord, he yet shows that he is not thinking solely of the Lord, since he adds: and thy word. His conduct before and after this throws light on this apparently unimportant statement of his; powerfully impressed by Samuels word, he puts it alongside of the word of the Lord; he is concerned to regain Samuels good-will and approbation. This regard for Samuels human authority, which ought to vanish out of sight before Gods authority, springs from the same root in his heart (lack of humble fear and simple obedience towards God) as the fear of men and desire to please men which he himself now gives as the reason for his disobedience: For I feared the people and obeyed their voice.Berl. Bib.: Here stands revealed the hypocrite, who loved the honor of men more than the favor of God. The people must still tear the blame. Instead of fearing God, he feared the people, he the king, who in this, therefore, was guilty of unpardonable weakness; he obeyed the voice of the people instead of Gods voice out of fear of man, if indeed the people did make the demand. And yet in all his confession of sinful regard for men his purpose is evidently to soften his guilt by bringing in the people.[Exo 23:2 : Thou shalt not follow the multitude into evil.Tr.]He prays Samuel: And now, pardon my sin. He does not turn straightway to God with this prayer; the and now indicates his belief that he might expect the fulfilment of his prayer in return for his confession of sin. Samuel turns from him, perceiving that the confession and prayer do not come from a truly penitent heart. To this Sauls request refers: Return with me that I may worship the Lord.Confession, renewed excuse, cry for forgiveness, request to Samuel to remain, desire to approach God, all follow one after another in painful haste. Saul is smitten by his conscience; but his heart is not broken. He nevertheless gives not God the honor. 1Sa 15:26. Samuel, seeing through him, shortly and decidedly rejects his request, and instead repeats his previous judicial sentence, because Sauls desire for forgiveness sprang not from a penitence directed to God, but from a self-loving penitence, whose aim was his own advantage; for he did not trouble himself about his having dishonored God, but was afraid that he might lose the kingdom.
1Sa 15:27. Samuels turning away from Saul was a vigorous confirmation of his rejection, and a sign that he would henceforth have no association with him. The impression which the narrative makes on us of a, vehement, unquiet and disordered mind is heightened to the utmost by this moving scene in which Saul seizes the skirt of Samuels mantle in order to arrest his departure, uses physical force, that is, to attain his end: and it was rent.[It is plain that it is Saul that tears Samuels garment undesignedly. Some Jewish writers held that Samuel symbolically tore Sauls garment or his own (Gill).Tr.]
1Sa 15:28. Samuel uses this as a symbol to show Saul that the Lord had that day rent the kingdom from him. The second part of Samuels address declares that the theocratic kingdom was to be given to another, thy neighbor,an indefinite expression, since Samuel did not yet know whom the Lord had chosenwho is better than thou, that is, who would walk obediently in the ways of the Lord. Before it was said: the Lord hath rejected thee from the kingdom; now it is said: the Lord hath rent the kingdom from thee. Samuel, who for the third time announces the rejection of Saul (whose spiritual steadfastness constantly diminishes), expressly emphasizes the fact that the Lord has rejected him not merely personally, but as the theocratic king. In 1 Samuel 13., on the other hand, it was declared that the kingdom should not remain permanently in his family. Though now Saul retained the kingdom some years after this rejection, Gods relation to him was, in consequence of his apostasy, completely altered; he no longer looked on him as the organ of His will, and withdrew from him the power and gifts of His Spirit. His external royalty remained as a divine appointment; but its inner core was rejected; Saul, as bearer of the royal office, was rejected, because he had rejected the Lord.
1Sa 15:29. Samuel declares this divine sentence to be unavertible and unavoidable: And also the Refuge of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man that he should repent, that is, the judicial decision, by which the Lord has inflicted on thee the penalty of rejection, remains unchanged and unchangeable by reason of His immutable will. And also introduces this sentence as something new=in addition to this. = steadfastness, permanence, then subjectively trust, confidence (Lam 3:18), then the object of trust, of God: the Refuge42 [Eng. A. V. Strength]. The same declaration of the unchangeableness of the divine decisions, only in reference to His promise of blessing, is found in Num 23:19. Comp. Jer 4:28; Eze 24:14. The apparent contradiction between this declaration (The Lord does not repent) and that in 1Sa 15:11; 1Sa 15:35 (The Lord repented) is by some expositors harmonized by remarking (Clericus) that here (1Sa 15:29) the words are said [as becomes God], and are there to be understood [after the manner of men]; but this does not offer a complete solution of the question, since the expression it repented the Lord, rightly understood after being divested of its human dress, is the appropriate expression of a real manifestation of the unchangeable divine being and will, only this latter must occupy a different relation to the man who has himself changed. In contrast with man, who repents because his will changes, God is here declared by Samuel to be (in respect to Saul) the unchangeable God, who cannot contradict Himself, as would be the case if He retracted His decision concerning the impenitent Saul; while in 1 Samuel 15:41 and 1Sa 15:35 the same unchangeable God is described in human phrase according to the changed relation which His unvarying holy and righteous will must occupy to men when they recede from the religious-moral relation to Him, under which He has hitherto in holiness and righteousness revealed Himself.
1Sa 15:30. Not even by this overwhelming declaration of the irrevocable character of Gods sentence, founded, as it was, in the unchangeableness of His holy and righteous will, is the excited Saul silenced. Two things, he says, wherein is displayed the real selfishness and self-love of his heart. First he repeats his confession of sin. But it is only in one word: I have sinned. And that this was a hypocritical one is shown by what follows:Yet, honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me that I may [better, and I will,Tr.], worship the Lord thy God. How many words, spoken with passionate haste, against that one cold introductory word I have sinned! If the Lords sentence of rejection is irrevocable, Saul will at least before men save the halo of royal honor. His inner man is revealed. He did not honor the Lord by obedience, and when his disobedience was held up before him, he persistently denied the Lord His honor in his impenitent mind. Now comes to light the deepest-lying ground of this conduct. He is concerned about his own honor. In his self-seeking he has clean cast loose from the Lord and withdrawn into himself. [If Saul had been really penitent, he would have prayed to be humbled rather than to be honored (Gregory, quoted by Wordsworth).Tr.]. And Samuel returned after Saul. He then acceded to Sauls request, not, of course, to yield to his selfish opposition to Gods honor, but to preserve unimpaired in the eyes of the people the position of Sauls kingdom, which though theocratically rejected, yet still in fact by Gods will remained, and especially not to be wanting in the sacrifice of the people.
1Sa 15:32 sq. What Saul had disobediently neglected, Samuel executes in the name of the Lord, namely, the extermination of Amalek by slaying king Agag.Agag appeared before Samuel cheerfully; the word occurs in Ps. 29:17 in the sense of joy. His words: Surely, the bitterness of death is past agree with his joyful mood. S. Schmid sees in them the feigned courageousness which cowards can put on. Others understand a real heroic contempt of death in the presence of death. Probably, however, Agag, not having been slain by Saul, was all the surer of life when he was led from the king to Samuel [since Samuel was an old man and a priest.Tr.].
1Sa 15:33. Samuels words, however, must have immediately shown him his error. They presuppose that Agag had acted with great cruelty in his marauding and military expeditions: As thy sword has made women childless, so shall thy mother be the most childless [or, be childless] among women; that is, because in her son she loses at the same time the king of her people (Bunsen).There can be nothing surprising in Samuels hewing Agag in pieces for one who from the theocratic point of view regards Agags death as a necessity founded in the divine decree, and sees in Samuel the divine instrument for the fulfilment of the divine will, coming in place of him who in spite of his call thereto has refused obedience and service. Grot.: When kings abandoned their duty, God often executed His law by prophets 1Ki 18:40. [Samuels act was not one of revenge, not an individual execution of justice, but a simple carrying out for the people of the ban-sentence pronounced against Amalek by Jehovah.Tr.].
1Sa 15:34 sq. The notice that Samuel returned to Ramah and Saul to Gibeah is a significant introduction to the important statement that henceforth Samuel broke off all communication with Saul: He saw him no more to the day of his death. Maurer: He went to see Saul no more. This does not contradict 1Sa 19:24, according to which Saul once more met him. All intercourse with Saul on Samuels side ceased from now on, since God had rejected him, and Samuel could have met him only as messenger and prophet of God. From this also we see that Sauls kingship, though still one de facto, yet from this time lost its theocratic relation. Gods ambassador was recalled from him; the intercourse of the God of Israel with Saul through His Spirit came to an end, because Saul, sinking step by step away from God, had by continued disobedience and increasing impenitence given up communion with God.In keeping with the above mention of Samuels fervent, continued prayer for Saul is the statement: For Samuel mourned for Saul; this was the human sorrow for this highly-gifted, highly-favored, and hopelessly-sunken man; then follows the deeply pathetic statement: The Lord repented, etc.; this was the divine sorrow over the loss of this chosen instrument.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. When the Scriptures speak of Gods repentance, anger, zeal, and the like, ascribing to Him human affections and dispositions, and consequently changes, we cannot regard these anthropopathisms as merely figurative statements; these representations, after leaving out the ungodly human element, as Nitzsch (Syst., 79 A. 2) remarks, have realness and validity; it is not a human, but a divine movement that is spoken of, and we must therefore deny that it is sinful and passionate, but not that it is efficient and true. The anthropopathic representations set forth a real relation of the living God to man who bears His image, only described from a human standpoint. They are the means of maintaining vigorously and effectively the thought of the living God and His real relation to man, and of saving it from being dissipated in abstractions. Kling admirably says on the two passages in point in this chapter (Art. Reue in Herzog): The latter (1Sa 15:29 he does not repent) refers to the firm, irrevocable resolution to give the kingdom to a better man; the repentance (1Sa 15:11) looks to the fact that Saul, an humble man when he was called and fitted to discharge his duty in faith and obedience, was now changed, exalted himself in his office, would be his own master, and, setting aside Gods express command, followed his own pleasure. Thus he showed himself no longer fit to be king in Israel, Gods people, and the divine will, which made him king, changed to the opposite,a repentance which betrays no mutability in God, but rather reveals His constancy alongside of the mutability of man, His unvarying will that the humbly obedient shall be king in Israel.
2. Persistent impenitence towards the holy and righteous God, as it is exemplified in Saul, has its deepest ground in the unwillingness to subordinate ones own self, especially ones own will to the holy will and the gracious will of God. It leads to hypocrisy, which seeks to cover its own wrong with works of external piety, or lays the blame on outward circumstances and other men. Before the irrefragable self-revelation of the holy and righteous God the impenitent man, despite his concealing lies and hypocrisy, must ever reveal new hidden sins, ever involve himself from step to step in new sins, till the deepest depth of his sinful heart is displayed in self-seeking, self-love, and self-will; and if the sinner will not even then humble himself and take refuge in the grace of God, there comes the judgment of inner hardening, by which the man becomes insusceptible to the influences of Gods Spirit and word, and incapable of turning to God, since the will confirms itself in permanent opposition to God; the end is the divine judgment of rejection. See the separate steps of this process in the Exposition of the Section.
3. The word: Obedience is better than sacrifice is the refutation of a twofold error: 1) that man can gain Gods approval by outward works, apart from a spirit of true obedience in which heart and will are given up and subjected to Him; 2) that man can by such works absolve himself from the performance of moral duties, and escape the guilt and punishment of his disobedience to God.This declaration further indicates the true relation between the ceremonial law and the moral law. The holy usages of the former, especially sacrifices, do not occupy towards the demands of the latter the relation of the Outward to the Inward. Every ceremonial law is moral; the outward act is never enjoined but for the sake of the inward thing, what it picturesrepresents. Never is there body without spirit. But the fleshly sense would have none of the spirit, and laid hold solely of the body, which thus isolated became a corpse. Hengst. Einl. zu Psalms 50. That word contains the principle of and lays the foundation for the position which the prophetic Order (after Samuels example) takes towards the sacrificial worship and the fulfilment of the ceremonial law in general. Not the offering absolutely is rejected, but the outward work without the root of love to God (Deu 6:5) and of the obedience whence alone it can spring as fruit well-pleasing to God. On the relation between the teaching of the Mosaic law and this prophetical doctrine (which dates from this word of Samuel) of the necessity of the sacrifice of a pious heart and an humbly obedient will in contrast with external service according to the prescriptions of the ritual law, Oehler (Herz. XII. 228) says: The prophets, by bringing out the difference between the ritual and moral laws, and by declaring the merely outward service to be in itself worthlessand valid only as the expression of a godly will, merely logically developed Mosaism, which indeed commonly puts the moral and the ritual, the inward and the outward immediately side by side, but therein indicates not unclearly the sense and aim of its teaching, partly by basing all laws on the divine elective grace and the divine holiness, partly in the fact that even the ritual ordinances of the Law every where display a spiritual meaning, and thus awaken a dim conception of moral duties. On the other hand, Prophecy by inserting in its pictures of the Messianic times essential features of the old ceremonial, shows that it holds fast the divine significance and warranty of the ritual law.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa 15:1. Berlenb. Bible: Although Saul was rejected by God on account of his disobedience, yet God left him still king, so that he was bound to carry out the will of God.[Henry: Samuel plainly intimates that he was now about to put Saul upon a trial, in one particular instance, whether he would be obedient to the command of God or no. And the making of this so expressly the trial of his obedience, did very much aggravate his disobedience.Gill: And whereas he had been deficient in one instance before, for which he had been reproved [chap. 13.], he suggests that now he should take care to observe and do, particularly and punctually, what should be enjoined him.Tr.] It is impossible to be truly a king and to rule in the church, if one does not yet know the voice of the Lord, and cannot distinguish it from the voice of reason and nature.
1Sa 15:2-3. Starke: Gods judgments, though they come slowly, yet come certainly and at the right time (Exo 32:34).[Hall: He that thinks, because punishment is deferred, that God hath forgiven or forgot his offence, is unacquainted with justice, and knows not that time makes no difference in eternity.Tr.]Schlier: When God the Lord commands such a war of annihilation, then this is no war of human vengeance; still less is it an ambitious war of conquestbut it is a judgment of divine wrath.
1Sa 15:6. Cramer: We must beware of communion with the ungodly, that we may not be swept away with them (Rom. 18:4).Osiander: God requites to the pious even their forefathers good works and benefits, which they have done to their neighbor. Who then will say that it is vain to serve God (Mal 3:14).Schlier: Thus does every good thing reward itself; nothing remains forgotten; often in later centuries the seed sown in an old past yet every where comes up gloriously, and children and childrens children derive advantage from the good done by the fathers.
1Sa 15:8-9. Starke: Not what seems to us good are we to do, but what God will have from us (Jer 7:23). Avarice leads to great sins, especially to untimely compassion (1Ti 6:10).S. Schmid: No one is more foolish than he who wishes to be wiser than God, and ventures to explain Gods word and commandments according to what seems good to him.
1Sa 15:10-11. It repenteth me.Berlenb. Bible: Such feelings must in the case of God be understood in a divine manner, and not as in the case of changeable men in a human manner; they must be understood more in the effect than in the affection, of Gods unchangeable righteousness, which moves Him to withdraw His special grace and to with hold His hand, the cause of every change that takes place among His creatures.[Gill: Though God repented He made Saul king, He never repents of His making His saints kings and priests for Himself. His outward gifts He sometimes takes away, as an earthly crown and kingdom; but His gifts and callings which are of special grace are without repentance, Rom 11:29.Tr.]
1Sa 15:12. Osiander: The lost sheep we must diligently seek, if perhaps they may be brought to the right way.
1Sa 15:13. [Henry: Thus sinners think by justifying themselves to escape being judged of the Lord; whereas the only way to do that is by judging ourselves.Tr.]Starke [from Hall]: No man brags so much of holiness as he that wants it (Luk 18:11-12).[Wordsworth: Here is a proof that a man may be blinded by his own self-will, and that he may imagine that his own way is right, while it is leading him to the gate of death (Pro 14:12; Pro 16:25). It is not enough for a man to be approved by his own conscience; but it is necessary to regulate the conscience by Gods Will and Word (Act 26:9; 1Ti 1:13).Tr.]
1Sa 15:14-15. S. Schmid: God knows how to bring mens sins to light, however great the care with which they may be cloaked.Starke: Nothing remains concealed, and sooner than the sins of the ungodly should fail to be reported, the irrational creatures themselves must reveal them. [Hall: Could Saul think that Samuel knew of the asses that were lost, and did not know of the oxen and sheep that were spared? Much less when we have to do with God Himself should dissimulation presume either of safety or secrecy. Can the God that made the heart, not know it?Tr.]
1Sa 15:15. [From Hall]: It is a shameful hypocrisy to make our commodity the measure and rule of our execution of Gods command, and under pretence of godliness to intend gain.Osiander: Hypocrites will not come right out with the confession of their sin, but desire always to excuse and palliate it.Berl. Bible: Beware of covering thy ungodly heart with the cloak of religion, and consider that the day is coming on which God will make manifest what is hidden in darkness and the counsel of mens hearts (1Co 4:5).
1Sa 15:16. S. Schmid: We must not look to what hypocrites say of themselves, but to what Gods word says of them.Berl. Bible: Hold on! speak not many vain words to cloak and to palliate! The stitches do not hold. Happy he in whose spirit there is no guile (Psa 32:2). [Scott: The unhumbled heart, however, will never be at a loss to excuse or palliate the most evident criminality; and it will always be necessary for preachers to drive sinners from their subterfuges, to show them the malignity and aggravation of their offences, to silence their objections and excuses, and urge conviction upon their hearts, though the convincing Spirit of God alone can render the means effectual (Joh 16:8; Joh 16:11).Tr.]
1Sa 15:20. Cramer: That is the way with hypocrites, that they make themselves fair, and yet are not washed from their filthiness (Pro 30:12). They boast of their works, and their hand kisses their mouth (Job 31:27; Luk 18:11).Berl. Bible: Saul makes his cause worse and worse, while he wishes to be guiltless, yea, even to be in the right towards God, as if he had executed every thing quite well, even after Samuel had already censured him and sought to arouse his conscience. It is accordingly not only a single sin, but many there come together. He contradicts the prophet, he denies that he has been disobedient; he makes light of his fault, even if any fault were granted, and throws it to and fro from himself to the people; he uses the service of God for a pretext and cloak of excuse, like a vile hypocrite who has little respect for Gods omniscience. See what tricks corrupt nature can devise? How crafty it is in its concealment! How many kinds of subterfuges it employs to defend itself!
1Sa 15:21. Osiander: It is a horrible crime when any one wishes to cloak his avarice, disobedience and other crimes with religious devotion (Joh 12:4-6).Berl. Bible: How many engaged in Gods worship deceive themselves herein, who think it is enough to offer something temporal to the Lord, when meanwhile they are constantly maintaining their own disposition and their own will![Scott: When the Lord expressly says, Thou shalt, and His rational creature dares to persist in saying, I will not, whether the contest be about an apple or a kingdomit is stubbornness and rebelliona contempt of the commandment of God, and a daring insult to His majesty and authority.Tr.]J. Lange: Even in the Levitical worship God always and chiefly looked to the inner (Eze 6:6; Psa 51:18-19). My fellow Christian! make thy Christianity then consist not in the outward but in the inward, and worship God in spirit and truth (Joh 4:24).Berl. Bible: May we then take good care that even when we mean to render the Lord service or obedience, we yet beware of our choice and fancy, and follow only the traces of the divine will, and thereby escape from ourselves or break and tame our own will. Obedience is the mother-grace, the parent of all virtues. It makes the eye see, the ear hear, the heart think, the memory remember, the mouth speak, the foot go, the hand work, and the whole man do that, yea, that alone, which is conformed to the will of God. All these and other things are valuable only in so far as they agree with the will of God.
1Sa 15:23. S. Schmid: It is a dreadful fault when one wishes to make light of gross sins. An honest servant of God represents the greatness of the sins according to the truth and prescription of the word of God.Tueb. Bible: God rejects no one unless he is before rejected by Him.Berl. Bible: It is impossible for him who is not obedient to God to lay any command upon men. That is what these words and the aim of God therein mean.The authorities must not proceed according to their own will and notion, but in everything must take Gods word and will for their rule.If He does not drive them (the apostate rulers) from their position, like as He did Nebuchadnezzar, but leaves them ruling, as He also did Saul for a while, yet they are and remain rejected in His might, and vainly write themselves by the grace of God, when He Himself does not so acknowledge them.[On 1Sa 15:22-23, there is a sermon by Jeremy Taylor, chiefly on rebellion, in which he uses singular arguments to justify religious persecution.Tr.]
1Sa 15:24. Osiander: That is the way with hypocrites, that they do not outright and freely confess their sins, but push the guilt, as far as ever they can, from themselves upon others.
1Sa 15:26. Berl. Bib.: Every one wonders that God, who is yet so full of compassion, does not forgive Saul, though elsewhere He never refuses forgiveness to any repented sin. But it is due to the fact that the longing after forgiveness in Saul proceeded from no such repentance as God had in view, but from a self-loving repentance, which had only its own advantage as aim. For he was not troubled that he had dishonored God, but was in fear that he might lose the kingdom.
1Sa 15:29. Osiander: Although God, so long as we do not repent, does not change His threatenings, but certainly carries them into execution, yet if we earnestly repent and better our lives, He does repent of the evil which He had threatened to do us if we had gone on in sin (Jer 18:7 sqq.); and such a change is not instability in God, but grace and goodness.
1Sa 15:30. Berlenburger Bible: Honor me, I pray thee. That shows what he is mainly concerned about (Joh 5:44; Joh 12:43); loss and shame he would like to escape, and as he cannot deceive God, he wishes to deceive men by the appearance of Gods favor.Wuert. Bib.: Hypocrites bewail and lament in their repentance only the chastisements they have to suffer, and not their sins; they seek only their own, and not Gods honor (1Ki 21:27).[S. Gregory (in Wordsworth): If Saul had been really penitent, he would have prayed to be humbled, rather than to be honored.W. M. Taylor: There came to the son of Kish a tidal time of favor, which if he had only recognized and improved it, might have carried him not only to greatness, but to goodness. But he proved faithless to the trust which was committed to him, and became in the end a worse man than he would have been, if no such privileges had been conferred upon him. As his life wore on, the good features in his character disappeared.Tr.]
1Sa 15:33. S. Schmid: Although the right of retaliation has no place in personal revenge, yet it is righteously exercised in public judgments (Lev 24:20). To execute Gods strict judgment with a spirit free from all thirst for vengeance, is no barbarity.
J. Disselhoff on 1Sa 15:1-21. The fall of King Saul shows: 1) How unrepented and only whitewashed sin at the first severe temptation breaks out as manifest and criminal self-seeking; 2) How this self-seeking is so blinding as to tell itself and others the lie that it is a labor for the Lord.The same on 1Sa 15:20-23. Sacrifice or obedience? 1) A sacrifice which lacks obedience of heart is an abomination in the sight of God; 2) Where obedience of heart is, there is also the true sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.The same on 1Sa 15:23-31. Beware of a Sauls confession. That you may do this, it is necessary to know two things: 1) What a Sauls confession Isaiah 2) What a Sauls confession works.
1Sa 15:1-11. Gods curse and blessing: 1) Long delayed, but not revoked; 2) At last fulfilling itself according to Gods truth and righteousness.
1Sa 15:22-23. Sacrifice and obedience: 1) Sacrifice without obedience (worthless in the sight of the Lord, perilous for men); 2) Obedience the best sacrifice (on what ground, with what blessed result).
1Sa 15:10-31. Seeming repentance before the Lord: 1) How it conceals from the Lord the root of sin in the heart; 2) draws the garment of self-righteousness over sin; 3) thereby leads from sin to sin; and 4) drives on towards the judgment of hardening and rejection.
[1Sa 15:11. The Lord repented: 1) in what sense, 2) for what reasons, 3) with what results. (Comp. Exeg. on 1Sa 15:11; 1Sa 15:29, and Hist, and Doct., No. 1.)
1Sa 15:11. Praying in vain.
1Sa 15:11; 1Sa 15:16. Grieving, but faithful.
1Sa 15:12-13. The glory and the shame of Saulhis victory, his disobedience, his efforts to hide and palliate his offence. (This would embrace nearly the whole chapter.)
1Sa 15:20-21. Eclectic obedience.
1Sa 15:23. The rejecter rejected. Comp. Rom 1:24; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:28; Joh 3:18-19.
1Sa 15:27. Clinging to the religious teacher, while not clinging to religion.
1Sa 15:30-31. Worshipping to save appearances.
1Sa 15:32. To be without fear of death is not proof of preparation for death.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][1Sa 15:1. Omitted in Sept. (Vat., not Alex.); Syr. has Israel his people, while Vulg. and some MSS. have his people Israel. These may be free renderings, or may point to different texts.Tr.]
[2][1Sa 15:1. Wanting in Vat., Sept., and Vulg., and perhaps in Arab. (though Ar. is rather than ). The Heb. is not to be regarded as a later insertion to avoid an anthropomorphism voice of God (but the Targ. has the word of the saying of Jehovah) but simply as a full expression (comp. 1Sa 15:20; 1Sa 15:22 of this ch.). The Heb. is equivalent to word (as in Arab.) in the phrase hear the voice, obey the voice of Jehovah.Tr.]
[3][1Sa 15:2. The word () means visit, inspect, fix the mind on, Vulg. recensui, Aq. . Others render (improperly) will punish, so Sept. , Berl. Bib. will heimsuchen, De Wette ahnden, Gesen. (Thes. s. v.). The signification punish exists, but the future sense does not accord so well with the following verse.Tr.]
[4][1Sa 15:2. with to set ones self against. In the corresponding passage in Deut. (1Sa 25:17-19) the word is used to go to meet in hostile sense, and it is added cut off thy rear-guard, which perhaps in part suggested the rendering of Eng. A. V., which is found only here, comp. Jer 9:7 (8). The Targ., however, has laid wait (), and Syr. and Arab. omit.Tr.]
[5][1Sa 15:3. Sept.: Destroy him and all his, which is preferred by Wellhausen. The Greek text contains a duplet, and the Vulg. adds et non concupiscas ex rebus ipsius aliquid. The utterly which Eng. A. V. everywhere employs in rendering the word is as good an expression of the idea, perhaps, as is available. See translators note in the body of the work.Tr.]
[6][1Sa 15:4. Sept. Gilgal (see Erdmann), Syr. Teloyo or Teloye, Arab. Tawila. Chald., Vulg. and others have taken the word as appellative; Chald.: by paschal lambs, on which Rashi (Breithaupts translation) says: Saul told every man to take a lamb from the royal flocks, and then he numbered the lambs, since it was forbidden (Gen 16:10, al.) to number the Israelites; Anonymous Greek version (in the Hexapla) for ; Vulg.: quasi agnos.Tr.]
[7][1Sa 15:4. It is strange that Judah forms only the twenty-first part of the army, and that footmen and men of Judah stand opposed to one another (Wellh.). Syr: two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand with the men of Judah. The text is not clear.Tr.]
[8][1Sa 15:5. The definite Art. is better, since it was certainly the principal (possibly, the only) city of the Amalekites. Perhaps it was called Ir-Amalek (Bib. Comm.). Sept. has cities, and so Josephus (Bib. Comm.).Tr.]
[9][1Sa 15:5. On the Heb. verb-form see Erdmann.Tr.]
[10][1Sa 15:5. The bed of a winter-torrent, or, a ravine through which flows a brook or torrent; Arab. Wady.Tr.]
[11][1Sa 15:6. On account of the absence of the Art. in the Heb. Wellhausen proposes to read (as in Num 24:22; Jdg 4:11).Tr.]
[12][1Sa 15:7. The general direction is here given, as in Gen 25:18 (where, apparently, for we must read ).Tr.]
[13][1Sa 15:9. On the forms on this verse see Erdmann. Sept.: the good of the flocks and of the herds and of the eatables () and of the vines (). For (Eng. A. V. fatlings) Vulg. has vestibus, perhaps reading , or (Bib. Comm.). . Wellhausen transposes the from the fourth word to the third and renders: the best of the sheep and oxen, the fat and well-fed animals. As the text stands the third word is best rendered second-rate, which is not satisfactory. Proposed different readings are discussed in the exposition.Tr.]
[14][1Sa 15:11. The meaning here is not clear. The Heb. phrase ( ) usually means was angry, properly was hot, excited, not only by anger, but (as in Arab., Gesen., Fuerst) by any emotion, as grief. It is difficult, however, to establish the sense was sorry; the most favorable passage, Gen 45:5, is not decisive, and, indeed, is commonly rendered be not angry. If Samuel here was angry, it was either with Saul (which is improbable), or with himself (for which there is no reason), or with God (which we should not expect in Samuel), or with the general situation of affairs (which includes the others in part or in whole). The indefinite word grieved might therefore, be retained in the translation.Tr.]
[15][1Sa 15:12. Pregnant construction for rose up and went to meet Saul. Such constructions are common in Hebrew.Tr.]
[16][1Sa 15:12. The Sept. here badly transposes the names Samuel and Saul.Tr.]
[17][1Sa 15:12. clearly here monument. Its relation to hand and its original stem are not known.Tr.]
[18][1Sa 15:13. Sept. inserts: and he was offering sacrifices, though it is clear from the narrative that Samuel had not seen the animals, 1Sa 15:14 (Wellh.).Tr.]
[19][1Sa 15:14. The Heb. Art. is here better omitted in Eng.Tr.]
[20][1Sa 15:15. Sept.: I.Tr.]
[21][1Sa 15:17, The natural translation is: though thou art little in thy eyes, art thou not head of the tribes of Israel? as in Sept.: after which it would then be better to begin a new sentence and continue it in 1Sa 15:18. Jehovah anointed thee and sent thee. The past rendering, however, (as in Eng. A. V. Erdmann) is possible.Tr.]
[22][1Sa 15:18. The pron. is repeated here in the Heb., probably by clerical error.Tr.]
[23][1Sa 15:20. There is nothing in the Heb. corresponding to yea. The here introduces oratio recta (as in later Greek).Tr.]
[24][1Sa 15:20. Sept. badly the voice of the people.Tr.]
[25][1Sa 15:23. The Heb. order, in which the predicate precedes the subject, is more forcible, and not likely to be misunderstood by most Eng. readers. So it is stronger to omit the as which is not in the Heb. The word rendered iniquity in Eng. A. V. () means nothingness, and is used of sin in general, and frequently of idolatry or idols, as here. The Vers., except Vulg. and Chald., are here confused. Chald.: as the sin of the men who inquire by divination is the sin of every man who rebels against the word of Jehovah, and, as the sin of the people who wander after errors (idols) is the sin of every man who heaps up and adds to the words of the prophets.Tr.]
[26][1Sa 15:29. is variously rendered. Chald. and Syr. have same stem as Heb., idea of power, eminence; Vulg., triumphator; Luther, held (hero); Martin, force; Diodati, vittoria (victory); De Wette, vertrauen (confidence, trust); Van Ess., wahrheit (truth); Erdmann, hort (refuge). The Sept. and an anonymous Greek version misunderstood this word, and rendered (as if from ) and Israel shall be divided into two parts, and shall not return. The Chald. paraphrases in order to avoid the anthropomorphic expressions of the text.Tr.]
[27][1Sa 15:32. So Chaldee. Sept., trembling, Vulg., pinguissimus et tremens, Aq. delicately, daintily, and so Sym. .Tr.]
[28][Another view is that the Amalekites were an ancient Arabian tribe (Gen 14:7), afterwards partially fused with Edomites (Gen 36:12; Gen 36:16). So Ewald (Gesch. I. 331), Knobel (V. T., 22), and see Smiths Bib. Dict. s. v. For the view of the text see Herzog R. E., s.v.Tr.]
[29][That is, set array against, instead of laid wait for, as in Eng. A. V.Tr.]
[30]This war seems to be the same as that mentioned in 1Sa 14:48; but no date is given, and the chronology throughout is difficult.Tr.]
[31] is Hiph. of , contracted from , Ew. 232 a.
[32][Or, to carry him in triumph (Gill), or because of the comeliness of his person (Joseph.).Tr.]
[33][On these names see Text. and Grammat. No satisfactory rendering of them has yet been given.Tr.]
[34] , from the connection, refers to cattle, as in Gen 33:14. Ewald holds that this cannot be Niph. Part. from , contempt, and thinks the text corrupt, 126 b, Anm. 1 [yet remarks that the book of Samuel presents many examples of strange words from the popular dialect]. Perhaps it is a mingling of , sucked out, and , despised (Bttcher). But it is possible that this last word was corrupted in the popular language, so as to produce alliteration with the following word by the arbitrarily inserted . The second predicate is [Ni. Partcp.] from , to melt, the ruined, mangy cattle. Masc. and Fem. here stand together abnormally, as in 1Ki 19:11.
[35][See Gill in loco for a good statement of this.Tr.]
[36][See a good note in Bib. Comm. on Samuels complete acquiescence in the divine decision which at first (1Sa 15:11) so grieved him, and our duty always to trust God.Tr.]
[37][On this construction see Text. and Grammat. in loco.Tr.]
[38]Instead of read with Sept., Chald., Syr., Arab.
[39] Impf. Qal. of with Dag. forte implic. Ges. 72, Rem. 9.
[40][On the difficult subject of the nature of witchcraft and its treatment in the Old Testament see Art. Magic in Herzogs R. E.Tr.]
[41] with subst. may be predicate when a preceding closely attached verb leaves no doubt as to the sense, Ew. 337 b.
[42][On this word see Text. and Grammat.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The sacred historian is prosecuting the account of Saul’s reign, in this chapter. Every part of his government seems to be with a view to aggrandize himself, and to show his disregard to the Lord. We have here, the relation of a commission the Lord sent him upon, to destroy the Amalekites: his partial obedience to that commission: the Lord’s displeasure upon the occasion, and his rejection of Saul from being king, communicated to him by Samuel. The zealous prophet, in his warmth for God’s glory, doth that which Saul had neglected, and heweth Agag, the king of the Amalekites, in pieces before the Lord, in Gilgal. The chapter closeth with an account of Samuel’s final departure from Saul, and visiting him no more until his death.
1Sa 15:1
(1) Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
In the opening of this message, we should remark, how Samuel prefaceth it. I do not command thee, saith the prophet, but the Lord, who sent me to anoint thee king. Receiving, therefore, thy commission from him, see thou obey this precept faithfully. Reader! it doth not behove creatures, and sinful ignorant creatures too, such as we are, to reason about the fitness of such things as God commands. When we have to do with men, it may be proper to pause, and to reason on right and wrong: but when we have to do with God, it doth not become us to argue on his appointments. This doctrine is very sweet and precious, if considered as it refers to our faith in Jesus. Salvation in him, and through him, is the Lord’s appointed way. As such, let you and I heartily, and cordially accept it, without presuming to be wiser than God: and this will be our wisdom. So Moses told Israel: Deu 4:6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Obedience
1Sa 15:10-23
Obedience is a sacrifice better, because more profound than any other sacrifice can be. ‘It is much easier,’ Matthew Henry remarks, ‘to bring a bullock or a lamb to be burnt upon the altar than to bring every high thought into obedience to God, and make the will subject to His will.’ Sacrifice is as the presents which Hiram sent to Solomon; but obedience is like the artist whom he sent to remain in Jerusalem and do the finest work of the Temple for obedience is a living power, which returns from every altar stronger than when it went.
When an officer of Engineers urged that the directions he had received were impossible to execute, the Duke of Wellington replied: ‘Sir, I did not ask your opinion; I gave you my orders, and I expect them to be obeyed’.
References. XV. 16. J. Bowstead, Practical Sermons, vol. i. p. 73. XV. 22. H. Alford, Pudsea Chapel Sermons, vol. iii. p. 390. XV. 23. Ibid. Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. ii. p. 44. XV. 24. J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, part i. p. 105. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii. No. 113.
Saul’s ‘I Have Sinned’
1Sa 15:24
Saul said ‘I have sinned’ oftener than any other person in the Bible. Was he, therefore, the truest penitent? Was he a penitent at all?
His was the case of a backsliding man; backsliding still at the moment when he said them; on the decline going down the slope of sin at the same time that those godly words were on his lips. That is the characteristic, and there lies the bane of Saul’s ‘I have sinned’. He was on the incline; going further and further; lower and lower; and the words, spiritless and untrue, only precipitated him farther. Why was his ‘I have sinned’ so barren?
I. A Lack of Reality. His words had no reality. There was no religion in them. They failed all the tests of a true confession. It was simply remorse, the child of fear. It curried favour with man, and it sought to appease God for a temporal end.
II. He Implicated Others. Now observe, for your warning, some of the marks of a spurious and false confession. Saul’s did not isolate itself. True repentance always does isolate itself. The penitent is alone with God in the matter of his sin. It is ‘myself. He implicates no other. Saul said, ‘I and the people’; and ‘we’. Saul did more. He did what, from the time of Adam, a convicted but unhumbled heart always does, he skulked: he acknowledged the fact; but he transmitted the blame. ‘I feared the people, and I obeyed their voice.’ It is the very opposite to confession. Confession is always generous.
III. Would Stand Well with Men. It is plain, also, that Saul thought more of how he should stand with man than how he stood with God. ‘Yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord thy God.’ For man to honour him is just what the real penitent thinks nothing of. What is all that man can say to a mind sensible of God’s regard, and that is dealing with God and eternity? What an impertinence! Rather is not human honour, at such a moment, always distasteful to a man?
IV. No Relationship to God. And observe that ‘ Thy God’. The Christian always says, ‘ My God’. ‘Notwithstanding all I have done, my God.’ The appropriation is as necessary to the faith as the faith is necessary to the grace. However you have sinned, always say, ‘ My God’.
V. Clave a Religious Cloak to his Sin. And what was the worst of all? Though Saul said, ‘I have sinned,’ he gave a religious cloak to his sin! ‘We did it to sacrifice to the Lord.’ Pious phraseology is very often the bane of a good faith.
References. XVI. 1-13. W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 1. XVI. 2. F. Corbett, Preacher’s Year, p. 125. XVI. 4 J. Aspinall, Parish Sermons (2nd Series), p. 71. XVI. 6, 7. James Moffatt, The Second Things of Life, p. 48. XVI. 6-13. C. Perren, Sermon Outlines, p. 188. XVI. 7. S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 84. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Common Life Religion, p. 197. XVI. 11. A. P. Stanley, Sermons for Children, p. 32. XVI. 11, 12. J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children (5th Series), p. 1. XVI. 13. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. ii. p. 39. Bishop How, Plain Words to Children, p. 68. XVI. 14. Phillips Brooks, Twenty Sermons, p. 297. I. Williams, Characters of the Old Testament, p. 171. R. D. B. Rawnsley, A Course of Sermons for the Christian Year, p. 281. XVI. 14-23. W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 13.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Saul Rejected
1Sa 15:11
THIS is a decisive word, and a good reason is given for its being spoken. God is said to “repent” when, for moral reasons, he sets aside arrangements which he had appointed. The change is not in God, it is in man: all the government of God is founded upon a moral basis; when moral conditions have been impaired or disturbed, God’s relation to the matter in question is of necessity changed; and this change, justified by such reasons, could not be more conveniently or indeed more accurately expressed than by the word repentance.
Saul hardly begins his reign when, somehow or other, he gets wrong. He seems to be unable to take hold of anything by the right end. There is a mist before his eyes which causes him to mistake distances and proportions; and there is a crookedness in his judgment which brings him to false conclusions whenever he tries the simplest process of reasoning. He was told to remain in Gilgal for seven days. As Samuel did not come within that period, Saul became impatient, and, by vehemence of self-will, sought to recover ground which he supposed himself to have lost. Samuel addressed him in language of terrible severity: “Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee:… but now thy kingdom shall not continue” ( 1Sa 13:14 ). The anger seems to be out of proportion to the offence. Saul was impatient, and therefore he lost his kingdom. Saul disobeyed upon a point which did not appear to be of vital importance, and therefore he was to be deposed. This was very summary; so much so, that we feel inclined to rebel against it. We see something of the same thing in the life that is around us. Men are suddenly brought down from high and dignified positions. They are brought into desolation as in a moment; and yet we are at a loss to see cause enough for the angry visitation of God. No doubt they have been imperfect, but so are all men: no doubt they have sinned; but in this they have the example of the whole world to plead. The fact is, that we do not see the whole of any case. “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” This is our confidence, that every stroke of divine judgment is proportioned to the guilt upon which it falls, and, though we cannot see the proportion now, God will cause us hereafter to see that his judgments have been true and righteous altogether.
We shall now see more deeply into the character of Saul than we have yet done. We have before us a detailed account of one transaction; sometimes into one act we put the quality of our whole character; and one day may sometimes be taken as a condensation of an entire lifetime. There are single acts which gather up into themselves the processes of many years. One cry of anguish may tell the tragic story of a wasted life. In this case, Saul was commanded to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Such was the commandment: what was the result? This: “Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly” (1Sa 15:3 , 1Sa 15:9 ).
What are the lessons with which the narrative is charged?
1. The danger of mistaking partial for complete obedience. “Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.”
( a ) God requires literal obedience.
( b ) God’s language never exceeds God’s meaning.
( c ) Conscience is seen most clearly in minute obedience.
2. The possibility of giving a religious reason for an act of disobedience. “The people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God.”
( a ) One duty must not be performed on the ruins of another. It was a duty to sacrifice, but sacrifice must not be offered upon disobedience.
( b ) God’s commandment must not be changed by men’s afterthought Lucky ideas, sudden inspirations, and the like, mean ruin, unless well tested.
3. The danger of being seduced into disobedience by social clamour. “I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.”
( a ) The people who tempt are not the people who can save. ( b ) Where God has spoken distinctly, there should be no human consultation.
4. The certain withdrawment of the best influences of life, as the result of disobedience. “And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death.” Parents, ministers, friends, gone!
There are some incidental points of application:
(1) Sin discovers itself: “What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the cattle which I hear?”
(2) Sin will be punished. Four hundred years elapsed before the sword fell upon Amalek (Deu 25:17 , Deu 25:19 ). Time has no effect upon moral distinctions, or moral judgments.
Prayer
Almighty God, we have no fear, because thou art on the throne. Thy power is infinite, thy mercy endureth for ever. With our whole hearts’ love we say, Thy will be done. Deliver us from all self-trust. Help us to put our whole confidence in the Living One, who was, and is, and who yet will come to judge the world. May this day be to us as the Sabbath of the Lord; a time of rest and spiritual refreshment. May our souls know themselves to be near the Lord, and according to our manifold wants do thou command thy blessing to rest upon us, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Redeem us from all worldliness, all selfishness, all debasement, all fear. Establish us in thy holy love. Lord, increase our faith. Answer the cry of our heart when we appeal to thee for the pardon of our sins. We come to thee through the appointed way; we stand beside the holy cross; we look to the one sacrifice. Fill our hearts with joy whilst we tarry at the cross. The Lord hear us, and from the hill of heaven send us answers of peace! We pray evermore in the name of God the Son. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
IX
SAUL’S UNPARDONABLE SIN, AND ITS PENALTY
1Sa 15:1-35
It is needful to devote an extended discussion to this one chapter: 1Sa 15 . The matters to be considered are stem, awful, deep, and far-reaching, involving doctrines concerning the sovereignty and supremacy of God over nations and rulers, and his judicial administration in irreversible punitive judgments.
It is a caricature of God, divesting him of holiness and justice, which represents him as merciful only.
There is widely prevalent today a weak, sickly sentimentalism, which revolts at any view of the divine character other than his compassion, which divests sin of demerit and makes all punishment mere temporary chastisement and remediable. Henry Ward Beecher voiced the sentiment in his proposition: “All punishment is remediable.” The sentiment developed into a probation after death, and a purification by the fires of purgatory equal in atoning and cleansing power to the blood of Christ. Such sentimentalists find 1 Samuel 15 a nut as hard to crack as our Lord’s own teaching concerning his final judgment and the eternity of punishment. Four passages serve well as an introduction to this chapter:
1. Jehovah’s own declaration of his character and attributes to Moses, Exo 34:6-8 : “And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.”
2. God’s taking away from Nebuchadnezzar the heart of a man and giving him the heart of a beast “till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (Dan 4:25 ).
3. Paul’s teaching on Mars’ hill in Athens concerning God as the only object of worship and his government of nations (Act 17:22-28 ).
4. Our Lord’s declaration to the woman of Samaria, that God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth (Joh 4:23-24 ).
The first great doctrine involved is that Jehovah in his sovereignty over a nation may blot it out, root and branch, when the measure of its iniquity is full. We have already found examples of this law in the case of the Canaanite nations who had left the territory assigned to them as children of Ham when the earth was divided, and occupied the territory divinely allotted to the children of Abraham, but even Israel was held back from the land until the measure of the iniquities of these nations had become full. We have now to find in the story of Amalek the fitness of the application of the doctrine to them.
It is possible but not probable that they were the children of that Amalek named as a descendant of Esau in Gen 26:12 ; Gen 26:16 ; 1Ch 1:36 . If so, they are out of the territory of Edom (Esau) and ranging as a predatory tribe over all the Negeb, or South Country, expressly allotted to Israel. Without provocation they desperately assaulted Israel on the approach to Sinai in the battle of Rephidim, so graphically described in Exo 17:8-15 , on which occasion their doom was announced by Jehovah: “I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under Heaven. . . . Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” When Israel had sinned at Kadesh they combined with the Canaanites to inflict a defeat on it. Again, in the time of the judges they combined with the Midianites to destroy Israel, Jdg 3:12-13 . Moses, in one of his great farewell addresses, reminds Israel of the evils done by Amalek, and recalls the doom pronounced at Rephidim, and urges Israel to execute Jehovah’s will when they are established in the land, Deu 25:17-19 .
We find in far later times the last Amalekite known in history, Haman at the Persian court, seeking the destruction of captive Israel (Esther 3-8), and see him hanged on the gibbet erected for Mordecai. And now, as Saul is victorious over all his enemies, Samuel, as God’s prophet, demands the execution of the long-pending and richly deserved doom. From the beginning and all along they have sought with persistent and incorrigible malice to thwart God’s purpose to establish a nation as the custodian of his oracles, and through which all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. Amalek must perish or the world cannot be saved. It was not a mere political necessity, as voiced by Cato: “Carthage must be destroyed or Rome will perish.” It was a spiritual necessity involving the only hope to all nations.
The second doctrine involved is that the instrument by which such a ban is executed must consider the doomed nation and all its property as “devoted to Jehovah for destruction,” and hence no part of the spoils must be used to aggrandize the executor, or for offerings on Jehovah’s altar they are “devoted.” And it is this very feature which divests the executor of all moral responsibility. He is merely God’s sheriff executing a judicial sentence, and hence must act without private malice, vanity, or greed. The terrible case of Achan when Jericho was “devoted” was well known to Saul, and should have admonished him.
In later Jewish history, Nebuchadnezzar, the executioner of the divine will against Jerusalem, is called “God’s Ax,” and when the ax presumed to attribute to its own prowess the defeat of Israel, God humbles him as he did Saul; and when his successor, Belshazzar, blasphemously misuses the sacred vessels of the destroyed Temple, then it is that a hand appeared and wrote on the wall, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” and that night Belshazzar died and Babylon fell.
The third doctrine involved is the discrimination in Jehovah’s moral judgments, not paralleled in natural calamities as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and pestilences.
Jehovah’s discriminating justice appears in this destruction of Amalek by the precaution taken to avert from the Kenites dwelling with them, the doom of Amalek. These Kenites were descendants of Hobab, that brother-in-law of Moses who accepted the invitation of Moses: “We are going to a land which the Lord our God has promised us. Come and go thou with us, and we will do thee good.” So they went with Israel and shared the prosperity promised, and were always friendly and helpful, and always sheltered from the wrath of Israel’s enemies. Jael, who slew Sisera, was of this people.
This sifting of the good from the bad before the final doom falls on the wicked, is richly illustrated in the saving of Noah from the doom of the world, and reminds us of the great intercession of Abraham, when Sodom was doomed and Lot rescued: “Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked? . . . Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:23-33 ). It appears in the light on Goshen while Egypt was in darkness, and in all the other discriminating plagues.
The same principle of discrimination in divine justice is seen in the parable of the tares (Mat 13:24-30 ), in the separation at the great judgment announced by our Lord (Mat 25:31-46 ). In the same discourse, our Lord had given to the disciples a sign, by observing which they fled to Pella and escaped the doom of Jerusalem executed by Titus. Peter, referring to two notable instances of this discrimination, expresses the thought thus: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment” (2Pe 2:9 ). In the same way, John, in Revelation, before the doom falls on the spiritual Babylon, says, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues” (Rev 18:4 ). So the Kenites, when warned, quickly withdrew from Amalek and escaped its doom.
To lead up to the next doctrine, let us glance at the terms of Saul’s commission and the fidelity of its execution. The commission runs: “And Samuel said unto Saul) Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of Jehovah. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah” (1Sa 15:1-4 ). Thus commissioned by Samuel, Saul summons all the national militia, 210,000 strong, and smote Amalek from Havilah in the South Country unto the boundary of Egypt. It was a hard, desert campaign against a mobile, nomad people, and resulted in a marvelous and sweeping victory. But the record closes thus: “But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fallings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly” (1Sa 15:9 ). Saul was so elated at its thoroughness and extent that he erected a memorial of his prowess. He was filled with self-complacency. But God seeth not as man seeth, nor judgeth as man judgeth. In his eyes Saul had committed a presumptuous and unpardonable sin. To make this manifest, We turn from Saul in his triumph to a different scene, one of the most touching in all history.
THE INTERVIEW BETWEEN JEHOVAH AND SAMUEL.
1Sa 15:10-11
The sin of Saul may be thus analyzed:
1. Just what he did is thus stated (1Sa 15:9 ).
2. It was a wilful sin against light and knowledge, for it violated the clearly expressed command of Jehovah, 1Sa 15:3 : “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not) but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling) ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
3. It violated the central provision of the kingdom charter that the earthly king was only the viceroy of the heavenly King.
4. It was a presumptuous sin, being against the Holy Spirit, whose power resting on Saul was symbolized by his anointing, and which alone qualified him to be king and win victory.
5. It was rebellion, and classed with the capital sins of witchcraft and idolatry, which Saul himself punished with death.
6. It was blasphemous, in that it mingled human self-will, vanity, and greed with a bloody execution whose sole justification was obedience to Jehovah’s express sentence as Supreme Judge, without the human motives of vanity, gain or malice.
7. It was an eternal sin, evidenced by Jehovah’s refusal to hear Samuel’s all-night intercession, by Jehovah’s rebuke to Samuel for mourning for Saul, by the instant and permanent withdrawal of the Holy Spirit, by the sending instead an evil spirit to guide him to ruin, by the permanent separation of the prophet from him, by refusing ever again to communicate with him in any other way, and finally by withdrawing from him all that grace by which alone a man can become penitent. One may have remorse without the Spirit, but he cannot become penitent without the Spirit.
For the complete separation between Saul and Samuel, see 1Sa 16:1 , for the permanent departure of the Holy Spirit, succeeded by an evil spirit, see 1Sa 16:14 ; for God’s refusal to communicate with Saul any more in any way, 1Sa 28:6 ; to show that God’s refusal to hear intercession for a sin is a mark of its unpardonable character, see Jeremiah’s reference, Jer 15:15 , and compare this with 1Jn 5:16 : “If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death; not concerning this do I say that he should make request.”
Other New Testament correspondences are shown in the words of our Lord: “He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost committeth an eternal sin. It hath never forgiveness) neither in this world nor in the world to come.” The declaration in Heb 10:26-29 : “If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment. . . . A man that hath set at naught Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, (1) who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, (2) and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and (3) hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” You see there is sin against the Father, sin against the Son, and sin against the Holy Spirit; the first two pardonable, the last never, doing despite to the Holy Spirit, which is what Saul did, and hence the Spirit was permanently withdrawn from him.
We come now to the sad, eventful and last interview between Saul and Samuel. It is evident from this interview that Saul added brazen lying and hypocrisy to his rebellion. He first claims that he has fully obeyed Jehovah, even when the bleating sheep and lowing herds are within sight and sound to convict him. He then seeks to shift the blame and responsibility upon the people, and finally he attributes a pious motive to the sparing of the sheep and oxen to sacrifice on God’s altar. Samuel’s tenderness of heart toward Saul is evinced in his heartbreaking grief when Jehovah announces that Saul is lost. He not only spends a whole night in earnest but fruitless prayer that God would forgive Saul, but even after he knows that the punishment denounced on Saul is irrevocable he still mourns for him; but although his prayers in behalf of Saul are denied, and though it is a bitter cross to announce to Saul God’s stern will, yet he strictly obeys, and in his interview with Saul shows more concern for God’s honor than for his own grief.
We come to our next great doctrine in Samuel’s reply to Saul as expressed in verse 1Sa 15:22 : “Hath Jehovah as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” The doctrine here is not against the use of the God-appointed sacrifices, but it shows that mere external conformity with the law of types as embodied in sacrifices, and the observance of rituals without faith and the spirit of true worship, is as empty as a blasted nut. The doctrine does not undervalue the form of godliness, but it does show the superiority of the power of godliness. The truth lies, not in denying the need of the form, but in relying upon the form only. This doctrine magnifies the thing signified above the sign, and magnifies the spirit above the letter. The tendency of the priesthood the types and the rituals throughout the monarchy was a reliance upon mere empty ceremonies. It was the mission of the prophets to counteract this, as you will find by carefully reading the following passages: Psa 40:6-8 ; Psa 51:16-17 ; Isa 1:11-15 ; Jer 7:22-23 ; Hos 6:6 ; Mic 6:6-8 . These passages should be carefully studied in their context, otherwise we will never understand the difference in the spirit of the prophetic teaching as contrasted with the letter of the priestly teaching.
From these prophetic declarations the radical critics have drawn the irrational and untenable conclusion that the testimony of the prophets shows that the Levitical part of the Mosaic law was a late addition, and particularly they stress the declaration in Jer 7:22-23 . It is easy to answer their criticism upon all the other passages cited, but not so easy to reply to the Jeremiah passage. You might well say with reference to that passage that it was literally fulfilled in the days of the wilderness wandering after Israel’s sin at Kadesh. For thirty-eight years, they being under excommunication, God did not require them to comply with the forms of his laws. They did not observe the requirements of the tabernacle worship; they did not circumcise their children, the thought in Jeremiah being that aliens without faith in the thing signified are not commanded to observe the form.
We come to another great doctrine drawn from Saul’s confession, “I have sinned.” The doctrine is that a mere confession, in words is not a proof of grace in the heart. In Saul’s case, evidently his confession was extorted by remorse or the fear of the consequences made manifest by Samuel. Indeed, he trembled at the appalling doom pronounced upon him, but he never repented of his sin. Spurgeon illustrates this great doctrine by preaching a famous sermon entitled, “A Sermon from Seven Texts.” There were indeed seven texts, but every one of them had the same words, “I have sinned,” only these words came from seven different men, and he shows that Saul says, “I have sinned,” it does not mean what it means when the prodigal says, “I have sinned.” The author, when he was a pastor, was so much interested by this sermon of Spurgeon’s that he called the attention of his congregation to it and found three other texts. “I have sinned” spoken by three other men, making ten in all, and called his sermon “A Sermon from Ten Texts.”
Finally we need to explain the apparent discrepancy between what God says of himself, “It repenteth me,” in 1Sa 15:11 , and what Samuel says of God in 1Sa 15:29 : “God is not a man that he should repent.” The explanation is that “repent” in the first case does not mean the same as “repent” in the second case.
Whenever repentance is attributed to God, it does not mean that he has changed his mind, but that a sinner’s change of conduct has necessitated a change in God’s attitude toward the sinner.
The thought is fully illustrated thus in Gen 6:5 in these words: “And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, and it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart, and Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground.”
Here the repentance attributed to God expresses his genuine grief at the corruption of the most of the human race, and that this caused a change in his attitude toward so many of the race as were thus hopelessly and incorrigibly corrupted. It does not mean absolutely the whole race, for the context shows that Noah was an exception, and that God did not repent concerning Noah, but continued the race in him.
We say, in common parlance, “The sun rises and sets.” We do not mean by this that the sun revolves around the earth, but in common speech, based on appearance, we simply mean that the earth revolving on its own axis, changes its face to the sun, with the result of alternating day and night. I have stressed the great-doctrines of this section because preachers and Christian workers will be continually confronted with weak, sickly, and sentimental views of the character of God of the demerit of sin and of the eternity of punishment. This public opinion will press upon you to confine your preaching to the infinite compassion and mercy of God. You should, indeed, in the fullest terms, magnify God’s pity, his tenderness, his mercy, his long-suffering, his forgiving of sins, but you should also stress that when this mercy is despised, when it is disregarded until the heart becomes past feeling, then come hell and eternal punishment.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the nature of the matters in this discussion, and of the doctrines involved?
2. What is the sickly sentimentalism even now prevalent concerning these doctrines? Cite a special case.
3. What four scriptures might well serve as an introduction to this discussion?
4. What is the first great doctrine cited in this discussion?
5. Recite briefly the story of the Canaanites and of the Amalekites, and show the fitness of applying the doctrine to them.
6. What is the second great doctrine cited?
7. What are the special instances of its application?
8. What is the third great doctrine cited as arising from the provision to save the Kenites from the doom of Amalek?
9. Cite the several illustrations of this doctrine given.
10. Recite Saul’s commission against Amalek, and his execution of it.
11. Contrast Saul’s view of his performance with God’s view of it.
12. What is the fourth great doctrine, developed in Jehovah’s interview with Samuel?
13. Give the analysis of Saul’s sin, showing its unpardonable character, giving Old Testament proofs and New Testament correspondences therewith.
14. Show that Samuel’s great tenderness of heart toward Saul did not weaken his fidelity to God.
15. Show how Saul, in his last interview with Samuel, added brazen lying and hypocrisy to his rebellion.
16. What is the fifth doctrine found in Samuel’s reply to Saul, 1Sa 15:22 ?
17. What other prophets enforced the doctrine, and how does the New Testament endorse the prophets?
18. What irrational conclusions have the critics drawn from these prophetical utterances, and what the answer to them, especially on Jer 7:22-23 ?
19. What is the sixth doctrine, drawn from Saul’s confession, “I have sinned”?
20. How did Spurgeon illustrate this doctrine in a famous sermon?
21. Explain the apparent discrepancy between what God says of himself, “It repenteth me,” and what Samuel says of God, “God is not a man that he should repent.”
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Sa 15:1-35 :1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee [to be] king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
Ver. 1. The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king. ] And kings are doubly bound to obey the Lord, – as Queen Elizabeth wrote to Henry IV of France, – first as men; next as men so entrusted and advanced.
Now therefore hearken thou.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 15
Now as we get into chapter fifteen,
Samuel came to Saul, and said, The Lord sent me to anoint you to be king over his people, over Israel: now hearken unto the voice of the words of the Lord ( 1Sa 15:1 ).
Now he has shown a pattern of disobedience up to this point. He has become self-willed, doing his own thing. So the prophet is coming and warning him. This to me is very significant, because God does seek to warn us from our self-willed path of destruction. God doesn’t just let you trip off into the path of destruction, without coming and giving you fair warning, oftentimes, repeated warnings.
The Bible said, “He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck”( Pro 29:1 ). So God is faithful and God comes and He warns you, “Hey the path you’re choosing, the way of self-will is destroying you. Don’t do it.” Now listen to God, pay attention, obey the voice of the Lord.
So Samuel is coming with a warning for him and telling him of a mission that God is sending him on. “Now hearken to the voice of the words of the Lord.”
For the Lord said, I remember the Amaleks that when you were trying to come into the land, they withstood you. And therefore God wants you to go down and utterly wipe out the Amaleks; every man, woman, child, animal. [Don’t take anything back alive, utterly slay everything] ( 1Sa 15:2-3 ).
In order that God might be avenged against the Amaleks. Now you think, “Oh that’s a horrible command of God.” You would think so until historically you would study the practices and all of the Amaleks. They were so corrupt. They were going to wipe out themselves. God was just ordering really the eradication of a cancer within the society. They were like mad dogs. If you don’t destroy them, they’re gonna hurt innocent people. So God ordered the utter destruction of the Amaleks.
Now another factor here is that the Amaleks are always a type of the flesh in the scripture. The Amaleks being a type of the flesh; God is ordering the utter destruction of the flesh. “Wipe it out completely, don’t give any place for the flesh.”
The Bible says, “to fulfill the desires thereof. Crucify the old man, the old nature. If you by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh, put it to death” ( Rom 8:13 ). God says, “don’t give place for it, utterly wipe it out.”
Now Saul went down with the armies, and God gave victory over the Amaleks. However, they saw some of the cattle and some of the sheep were really good stock, and so they set them aside. He spared the king alive, but the sickly sheep, the sickly cows they really hacked them to pieces, didn’t give them a chance. That which was sickly and that which is not so good, they just utterly destroyed that, but the good, the healthy, the strong, they preserved them.
Now whatever this is, it is disobedience to the command of God. It is again another opportunity for Saul to redeem himself in obeying the command of the Lord. But it is disobedient, his failure to utterly wipe out the Amaleks, all of their cattle, and all of their sheep and so forth.
Now as we progress in history, and we’re gonna go into the time machine now, and we’re gonna go ahead in history a few hundred years. The story that is familiar with many of you, all of you have read the Bible, how that when Ester was chosen queen in Persia, there was one man in the kingdom of Persia that was seeking to destroy all the Jews because he could not stand this Jew “Mordecai”, who refused to bow to him. He had such a hatred for this man, he perpetrated a scheme whereby all of the Jews were to be wiped out and he had the king sign a decree that on a given day, all the Jews would be wiped out in all the kingdom of Persia.
This wicked man’s name was Haman. Now soon the Jews are gonna have, I think March second, the feast of Purim. The feast of Purim is in celebration of God’s delivering them from the hand of this wicked “Haman”.
Now in Israel, it is like Halloween almost, in that the little children dress in costumes. The boys dress in the costumes of the villain Haman, ugly mask, and their costumes. The little girls dress up like Ester, and all the little girls are so beautiful, and of course they have their masks and their little wands and everything else. It is like a Halloween. They’ll gather together and they have a sort of a party actually. They have the cookies and so forth, the Haman’s hat, cookies, and all of this, and it’s quite a thing over there. It’s actually a Holiday, the feast of Purim.
But the thing I want to point out is the nationality of Haman. He was a descendant of the king of the Amaleks, “Agag”. He was an Agagite. A descendant from Agag, so that Saul failing to completely obey God, almost cost Israel its whole national existence later on because he failed to completely obey the command of God. It almost cost the Jews in later history their very existence. This Haman the Agagite almost wiped them out completely.
Which if you do not bring your flesh to the cross, if you do not mortify the deeds of the flesh, if you seek to make allowances and tolerances, and say, “Well, that’s a pretty good part of me, it isn’t too bad,” your flesh will come back to destroy you. We must bring the old man to the cross. We must not give place to the flesh to fulfill its desires. We must reckon the old man to be dead, and failure to do so can create real problems down the line. Your flesh will come back to haunt you and it will come back to destroy your relationship with God. God wants you to bring your flesh to the cross and there reckon the flesh, the old man to be dead.
Saul failed to obey the command of God keeping the best cattle and sheep and so forth. So as he came back with the spoils of war. Old Samuel, who is now an old man, can’t see very well, he comes out to meet Saul.
And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said to him, Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord ( 1Sa 15:13 ).
Liar. But notice the spiritual language. “Blessed be thou of the Lord.” Now a lot of people can use spiritual jargon, but it really doesn’t mean anything. They go around saying, “Oh, praise the Lord. Oh bless God.” while they’re picking your pocket.
That’s right. There’s a young boy in Israel. He meets us always at the-he’s an Arab boy, and he meets us always when we’re coming down the path of the Mount of Olives. “Oh, Christians. America. Oh praise the Lord. Praise the Lord. Hallelujah, hallelujah. Oh, Christians from California? Oh yes. Brother, brother.” Watch out. Your wallet or your pen or something will be gone after his embrace. “Praise God. Hallelujah.” “Fat wallet, praise the Lord.” Spiritual jargon, it doesn’t prove anything. You can be a crook and use spiritual language. Often it is used as a disguise. “Blessed be thou of the Lord: I’ve done everything, I’ve performed all the Lord commanded me.”
Oh Samuel was not deceived, he said,
[If you’ve done everything that the Lord commanded you,] then what means the bleating of the sheep, and the lowing of the cows that I hear? [“Don’t give me that business.”] And Saul said, Oh they brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed ( 1Sa 15:14-15 ).
Now again remember Saul has developed a pattern of making excuses. When faced with his wrong, rather than repenting, when he offered the sacrifices in disobedience to God and Samuel called him for it, he said, “Oh, the people, you know, they were scattered and I forced myself. It was because of the people.” Now again faced “What do you mean that you’ve done everything? If you have, how come I hear the sheep and the cattle?”
“Oh well, the people, they kept the best. They brought them back to sacrifice.” Religious excuses are the most damnable of all.
And Samuel said unto Saul, [Just wait a minute pal,] I’m going to tell you what the Lord said to me tonight. [And Saul said,] Say on. And Samuel said, When you were little in your own sight, you were made the head over the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed you to be king over Israel? And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, [Notice the sinners, the Amalekites.] and fight against them until they be consumed. Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord, but you did fly upon the spoil, and you did evil in the sight of the Lord? And Saul said unto Samuel, Yes, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and I’ve gone the way which the Lord sent me, and I’ve brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites ( 1Sa 15:16-20 ).
He was lying; he was not repenting. But you see when he was little in his own sight, there was a difference then, but now he’s become puffed up. Pride has filled his life and it’s about to destroy him.
Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obedience to the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than to sacrifice, and to hearken to God is better than the fat of rams [which is burned in the sacrifices] ( 1Sa 15:22 ).
Flimsy excuse. God isn’t interested in the sacrifices from a disobedient heart and life. God would much rather you obey Him than offer sacrifices. Many times people are giving to God in order to cover their feelings of guilt. Giving to God is not a sign necessarily of great spirituality. People can feel very guilty, “Oh, I’m gonna make a sacrifice unto God” because they feel so guilty for their disobedience. God would rather have your obedience than your sacrifice. “To hearken to the voice of God is better than to offer the fat of rams upon the altar.”
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry ( 1Sa 15:23 ).
In other words, if you’re rebelling against God, that’s just as bad as if you were into witchcraft. If you have a stubborn spirit, you’re no better off than the person who is worshiping an idol. This business of rebellion and stubbornness is something that God is not pleased with in our lives. Rebellion is just as bad as witchcraft. Stubbornness is just as bad as idolatry.
And because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king. [The official rejection, “That’s it God has rejected your kingship”] And Saul said to Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: [But notice it isn’t a full repentance.] because [he said] I feared the people, and obeyed their voice ( 1Sa 15:23-24 ).
Oh, he didn’t fear the people. Again he’s just offering a lame excuse for his disobedience. God would rather have just a straight, frank confession. “God, I blew it. I was wrong. I sinned. God, I’m sorry, I repent.” God wants-there’s no sign of repentance in this at all. Some people think it’s cute to say, “Oh, I’m a sinner.” That isn’t repentance, it’s only a declaration of a blasphemous truth. “Oh, I sinned.” Doesn’t make anything out of you, forsaking the sin is what is important. Turning from the sin, the repentance is what God is seeking.
Now therefore, [he said] I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that we might worship the Lord. And Samuel said to Saul, I will not return with you: for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being the king over Israel. And Samuel turned to go away, and he grabbed hold of him, and tore his coat. And Samuel said unto him, The Lord has torn the kingdom from you this day, and has given it to a neighbour that is better than you are. And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent ( 1Sa 15:25-29 ).
Now the “Strength of Israel”, here being a reference to God. Notice, “The Strength of Israel will not lie or repent.” Now in Numbers we read, “For God is not a man that He should repent. Hath He not spoken? Shall He not make it good?” But in just a few verses we’re gonna read where he says, “God repented that He made you king.” How come this kind of a dichotomy? “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man that He should repent.”
Then Saul again said, I have sinned, yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, [In other words, “Make me look good in front of the people, I’ve sinned.”] and before Israel, turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord thy God. [Notice not the Lord my God, the Lord thy God.] So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshiped the Lord. Then said Samuel, Bring hither Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is passed. And Samuel said, As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. Then Samuel went back to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah. And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel ( 1Sa 15:30-35 ).
So God there “the Strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent.” Then what does it mean it repented the Lord that He made Saul king over Israel? There is always a difficulty in expressing God and the characteristics of God and the actions of God in human language, but all we have is human language.
Now God has characteristics, abilities, that we have no human language for, for we have no way of experiencing these things. I cannot even think how God thinks, because He knows everything. How does He even think when He knows everything to begin with? Now how can I even express the way that God thinks? How can I express the actions of God? I can only express them with human terms, as they appear to be from my human standpoint, but yet I am bound with human language.
Now I’m certain that there is a vocabulary of heaven that is far broader, and capable of expressing these things in languages, that if we heard it, we wouldn’t know it because we have nothing that will equal it in human experience. So we are seeking to describe now an action of God, and that is the action of turning away His favor from Saul, the change of God’s attitude towards Saul.
Now the word “repent,” meaning change, God is changing now His attitude towards Saul. We have only one word to describe that change, “repent.” But yet we have just read in a true sense, “God is not a man that He lies, or repents.” But yet we have this human language barrier. So we have to express the activities of God with human language. The only word we have to express this particular action of God’s obvious change in attitude towards Saul, the only word we have to express this obvious change is “repent.” Yet because it is God’s action, it isn’t a “repentance” as we think of repent in our human minds. But it is the only vocabulary word that we have to express this change of attitude, so we use the word. But it isn’t “repent” in the same way that a man repents from his decisions or his doings. I hope I’ve helped you. I don’t know. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Saul was commissioned by Jehovah through Samuel to smite Amalek, and it was in connection with this that the sin occurred which filled his cup to the brim and caused him to be rejected.
His campaign was victorious over the whole section of the country, but again he was disobedient, sparing Agag and a part of the spoil.
Samuel’s anger at this wrong is a clear revelation of his loyalty to Jehovah. Strong in his consciousness of the supremacy of Cod over the appointed king, and in his sense of the folly of the king’s sin, Samuel went forth to meet the king. When Samuel charged Saul with sin Saul prevaricated, meeting the prophet with what was virtually a lie on his lips, “I have performed the commandment of Jehovah.” Then in solemn and sublime words Samuel pronounced him as rejected for the kingship.
There is a striking contrast between Samuel and Saul as they are seen here side by side. Saul, the man of great opportunity, miserably failing and passing through disobedience to ruin. Samuel, rejected long ago of the people, still mighty in his allegiance to God, burning in anger, denouncing in force, and, finally, in a white heat of loyalty, himself hewing Agag to pieces.
This was the last interview between the king and the prophet prior to the latter’s death. Very touching is the statement, “Samuel mourned for Saul.” Evidently the old man had loved the young man, and had hoped great things from him. When Saul failed, Samuel denounced him without sparing, and then in loneliness mourned over him.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Leading the People in Disobedience
1Sa 15:1-16
Several years intervened between the preceding chapter and this. The kingdom had become strong and prosperous. It seemed as though Samuels sentence of deposition had been forgotten. But even in hot summer weather, the taint of autumn decay may be in the air. The speck of corruption was slowly eating into Sauls heart, and at last, when this charge came concerning Amalek, the evil was revealed to all. Amalek was under a curse, and the existence of the tribe was a standing menace to the peace and prosperity of the surrounding nations; hence the edict for its destruction, Exo 17:16. Even in this world God judges the nations, and condemns such as have ceased to fulfill His purpose. In spite of Gods distinct command, Saul connived at the reservation of the choicest and best of the spoils, and this brought about his rejection. It is noticeable, also, that an Amalekite claimed to have dispatched Him on the field of Gilboa, 2Sa 1:1-10. If we spare what God has commanded us to destroy, it may later destroy us. Take care in your obedience; you serve an exacting though loving God!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
1 Samuel 15
(with 1Ti 1:19)
The story of Saul is among the saddest which Scripture anywhere contains.
I. Notice first the singular elements of nobleness which are to be traced in his natural character, so that his moral stature did not altogether belie the stateliness of his outward frame. There is nothing which so often oversets the whole balance of a mind, which brings out faults unsuspected before, as a sudden and abrupt elevation from a very low to a very high position. But Saul gives no token that the change has wrought this mischief in him. The Lord’s anointed, Israel’s king, he bides his time, returns with a true simplicity to humblest offices in his father’s house. He would gladly, and that out of a genuine modesty, hide and withdraw himself from the people’s choice. Slights and offences done to himself he magnanimously overlooks. He ventures his life far for the people whom he rules, as one who has rightly understood that foremost in place and honour means also foremost in peril and toil. Saul is clear from every charge of that sin which left the darkest blot upon David’s life; seems very sparingly to have allowed himself that licence which almost all Oriental monarchs have so largely claimed. There was in him also a true capacity for loving. Of David we are told he “loved him greatly.” Even at his worst, what glimpses of a better mind from time to time appear! The deep discords of his spirit are not incapable of being subdued into harmonies, as sweet bells jangled or out of tune which for an instant, though, alas! but for an instant, recover their sweetness. And, most noticeable of all, the love which he could feel he could also inspire. If then there was a shipwreck here, they were not paltry wares, but treasures of great price, which went down into the deep.
II. The history of Saul brings home to us these facts: (1) That the life we now live is a life of probation; that God takes men and puts them in certain conditions to try them. We are each upon our trial as certainly as Saul was upon his. (2) All the finer qualities of Saul display themselves at the outset of his career; they gradually fade and fail from him, pride meanwhile, and defiance of God coming in their room, until at last of and caprice, and jealousy, and envy, and an open contempt all the high qualities which he once owned, only the courage, last gift to forsake a man, often abiding when every other has departed-until this only remains. (3) We learn from Saul not to build on any good thing which we have in ourselves. Let us bring that good thing to God and receive it back from God, with that higher consecration which He alone can give.
R. C. Trench, Shipwrecks of Faith, p. 31.
References: 1Sa 15:1-9.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. x., p.179. 1Sa 15:1-24.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 343. 1Sa 15:3.-S. Baring-Gould, Plain Preaching to Poor People, p. 109; J. Percival, Some Helps for School Life, p. 135. 1Sa 15:10-35.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. x., p. 302.
1Sa 15:11
I. Saul’s character is marked by much that is considered to be of the highest moral excellence-generosity, magnanimity, calmness, energy, and decision. He is introduced to us as a “choice young man and a goodly,” and as possessed of a striking personal presence, and as a member of a wealthy and powerful family. It is probable from the sequel of Saul’s history that the apparent nobleness of his first actions was connected with some wrong principles and feelings, which then existed only in their seeds, but which afterwards sprang up and ripened to his destruction.
II. Sight prevailed over the faith of Balaam; a more subtle, though not a rare, temptation overcame the faith of Saul: wilfulness, the unaccountable desire of acting short of simple obedience to God’s will, a repugnance of unreserved self-surrender and submission to Him. By wilful resistance to God’s will, he opened the door to those evil passions which till then, at the utmost only served to make his character umamiable, without stamping it with guilt. Derangement was the consequence of disobedience. The wilfulness which first resisted God next preyed upon itself, as a natural principle of disorder; his moods and changes, his compunctions and relapses, what were they but the convulsions of the spirit when the governing power was lost?
III. In contemplating the miserable termination of his history, we observe how clearly the failure of the Divine purpose which takes place in it is attributable to man. No one could be selected more suitable in talents or conduct for maintaining political power at home than the reserved, mysterious monarch whom God gave to His people; none more suitable for striking terror into the surrounding nations than a commander gifted with his coolness and promptitude in action. But he fell from his election because of unbelief, because he would take another part, and not the very part which was actually assigned him in the decrees of the Most High.
J. H. Newman, Sermons on the theory of Religious Belief, p. 146.
References: 1Sa 15:11.-Parker, vol. vi., p. 330; R. Lorimer, Bible Studies in Life and Truth, p. 93; J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 63. 1Sa 15:14.-J. Edmunds, Fifteen Sermons, p. 111.
1Sa 15:20-21
It will appear somewhat startling to any one who first notices it how very little is said in the Bible about truthfulness. The reason is that truthfulness is not a strictly religious duty; it is a duty which is entirely independent of faith in God or Christ, a duty which is so absolutely necessary to the very existence of society, that without reverence for it no community could last for a day. The word of God passes by those things which men can find out for themselves, and does not insist on those duties which the common interests of commerce and security and comfort are sure to enforce.
I. It is most important to notice with regard to this passage in Saul’s life that, taking the words as they stand, there was probably no absolute falsehood in them. Nothing is more probable than that the people did take of the spoil to sacrifice unto the Lord, and that at any rate it was very nearly true that Saul had utterly destroyed the Amalekites. And yet, after all, in God’s sight, with all this semblance of veracity, the unhappy king stood up as a convicted liar, who, with his reddening cheek and his stammering tongue, was being put to shame before all his people. He did not dare to lie outright. He would not quite confess his guilt, but he dressed up a lie in the garb of truth, and took his chance of getting off his punishment by a paltry subterfuge.
II. Saul is only a type of a million others who have done the like again and again in all times. It is the hardest thing in life to be true, and the rarest. To state the simplest fact with perfect simplicity, to explain our most innocent motive with exact honesty, are feats which will often baffle the most sincere among us. Truth is not natural. It is not common. It is not easily learnt; only by watchfulness and prayer can it be learnt at all. The first temptation was but a piece of cheating; the traitor Judas acted a lie when he gave his Master that false kiss in Gethsemane, and ever since then falsehood has been Satan’s chosen weapon for plucking Christ’s children out of their Saviour’s hands and robbing them of that heaven where only the true can live.
A. Jessopp, Norwich School Sermons, p. 43
1Sa 15:22
We can hardly read the history of Saul without some feeling of pity. He was no tyrant, who made himself king and ruled the people against their will. On the contrary, he was chosen by God Himself, was anointed by God’s prophet, and became king at the express desire of the people. He was a brave and noble man, too; he led the Israelites against their enemies, and, by God’s help, was victorious over them. There were, indeed, terrible blots on his character; his persecution of David for mere jealousy was base and wicked cruelty; nevertheless, when we read his sad history, we cannot fail to be moved with pity for one who was so great and so unhappy.
I. The words of the text contain a lesson which Saul had never learned. He served God and appeared zealous in His cause so far as the way of doing this suited his own pleasure and purposes, but whenever self had to be denied and God’s will made the rule of action instead of his own, then he rebelled. In fact, Saul never really worshipped God at all, he worshipped self, and he never learned this great truth: that obedience to God is the only thing pleasing in His eyes.
II. Saul stands to us as a type of those who profess to be Christians and act in a measure as Christians, and who, nevertheless, follow their own ways, just as if they were under no Christian vows at all. They have never learnt the great Gospel lesson of obedience, nor seen that obedience to God requires self-denial and discipline of ourselves. Faith and obedience are necessary parts of each other; there can be no obedience without faith, and faith without obedience is dead.
III. We have been received as the soldiers of Christ, and this comparison of a Christian to a soldier will show us very well what our obedience ought to be, for a soldier has no will of his own; his first and principal lesson is that of obedience; whatever service of danger he may be called upon to perform, he has no choice but to obey. This is the kind of obedience we are to yield; not an occasional act, but a constant battle against ourselves and against the evil nature that is in us, and a constant striving to root out all desires and thoughts which are contrary to the will of God.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 1st series, p. 195.
I. All obedience belongs primarily to God. The one Fountain of all good must be the single centre of all service. Thus far obedience is an instinct. The creature owes it to its Creator, the preserved to the Preserver, the family to the one great Parent of us all.
II. The question is not whether we will obey God. God is far too strong and absolute a God for that. Every creature which He has ever made shall and will obey Him. The question is only how we obey, and when. Shall it be a violent compulsion or a voluntary act of filial devotion? The true motive, the essence, of obedience God tells us when He says, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” “If ye love Me, keep My commandments.” To love is to obey, and the measure of the obedience is the degree of the affection. That affection is generated only by close contact with the Lord Jesus Christ.
III. Obedience does not consist in isolated acts; it is an atmosphere, it is a necessity, it is the breathing of a new existence, and it is the beginning of immortality.
IV. There is no happiness like the happiness of obedience. Adam was made to rule. The Fall has altered it, and now every man’s dignity and every man’s joy is in service. Man never fulfils his destiny but when he obeys. Therefore, in His great mercy, God has so placed every one of us, from the greatest to the least, that we have some one over us whom we have to obey. “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 10th series, p. 228.
References: 1Sa 15:22.-Dawson, Sermons on Daily Life and Duty, p. 286; H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iii., p. 390; G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 118; J. Harrison, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 49; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xii., No. 686, and Evening by Evening, p. 294; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xv., p. 55; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 34; S. Leathes, Truth and Life, p. 115; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 21.
1Sa 15:23
I. At the end of 1 Samuel 8, we find all arranged by the Divine command for a king being appointed over Israel, and at the beginning of chapter ix. we first read of Saul. His bodily stature and personal beauty prepossess us in his favour, and as the story goes on his good sense and modesty increase the prepossession. When chosen to the kingdom, we find him with a band of men whose hearts God had touched; and when the children of Belial said, “How shall this man save us?” he held his peace. We can hardly conceive a more promising commencement to a reign, or one more calculated to gather power and work deliverance for Israel. Saul’s is just the character of many a young man, full of high and noble feeling, modest, and distrustful of self, coming from a religious home or the influence of religious impressions, and placed in a post of responsibility, of activity. All is promise; we look for high distinction of the best kind, and for bright and blessed deeds for God and for good.
II. In the thirteenth chapter it appears that during the first two years of Saul’s reign the man of grace in him had been waning, the man of nature had been waxing stronger. The tendency of the man was to emancipate himself from God’s law and make himself supreme, to follow his own bent and natural impulse, to the setting aside of God’s positive commands. Saul desired to be his own master, and he was left to himself by God. (1) The first thought which occurs to us is this: in this its first king, as in a mirror, behold Israel itself. Israel, like Saul, has turned to his own way. Because he hath rejected the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected him from being king. (2) The second thought is: in this character, behold multitudes among ourselves reflected. How many there are with whom everything for time and for eternity trembles in the balance, and the question is whether they will serve the Lord in life or whether they will not. How many follow the example of Saul. They live for the world, and by degrees God’s grace is quenched; there is remorse behind and misery before, death inexorable and coming on with rapid strides, and eternity a dismal blank, the thought of which carries terror to the soul.
III. This picture of ourselves should teach us two especial cautions: (1) against forgetfulness of God; (2) against self-will.
H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. ii., p. 44.
Reference: 1Sa 15:23.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xiv., p. 16.
1Sa 15:24
No man, surely, should dare depend upon God’s temporal favours or upon the friendship of the best of men after reading of the sin and punishment of Saul, who failed so sadly at last, though he was made king of Israel by the especial providence of God, and though he had the constant affection and intercession of so good a man as Samuel. If men will not labour to keep their own hearts in the right place, it is not either in God or man to do them good against their will.
I. It was not for any one act of disobedience that the Almighty rejected Saul; it was on account of the temper and disposition which he showed in acting as he did, and which made him particularly unfit to be king over such a people as the Israelites. Saul’s commission was above all things to put down that spirit of mistrust and rebellion which prevailed among his subjects, instead of which he allowed himself to be carried away by mere heathen feelings and to act as a mere heathen prince.
II. Saul’s way of excusing himself to Samuel proves his heart to have been in the wrong, to have been, indeed, utterly destitute of the sincere love of God. If he might but have preserved his kingdom, the loss of God’s approbation would have made little or no difference to him. The temptation which led him wrong was his regarding the praise and favour of the people more than the praise and favour of God.
Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. iv., p. 124.
References: 1Sa 15:24.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii., No. 113; Parker, vol. vii., p. 71 (see also J. Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year: Sundays after Trinity, Part I., p. 138).
1Sa 15:24, 1Sa 15:30
We have here the confession of a backsliding man, going down the slope of sin at the same time that these godly words were on his lips. Saul was on the incline, and these words, spiritless and untrue, only precipitated him further.
It was one of those strange reactions of which the experience of every man is full that he who began in shyness committed his first great recorded sin in presumption.
Saul’s confession had not reality. There was no religion in it. It was simply remorse, the child of fear. It curried favour with man, and it sought to appease God for a temporal end. Notice some of the marks of a spurious confession. (1) It does not isolate itself, as true confession always does. (2) It seeks honour from men rather than from God. (3) It gives a religious cloak to sin. “He did it to sacrifice to the Lord.”
J. Vaughan, Sermons, 7th series, p. 85.
References: 1Sa 15:32.-J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 425. 1Sa 15:32-35.-G. B. Ryley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 260. 1Sa 15:35.-R. Lorimer, Bible Studies in Life and Truth, p. 93.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
8. War with Amalek: Sauls Disobedience and Rejection
CHAPTER 15
1. The commission to destroy Amalek (1Sa 15:1-9)
2. Sauls disobedience and rejection (1Sa 15:10-23)
3. Sauls confession (1Sa 15:24-31)
4. The doom of Agag (1Sa 15:32-35)
From verse 48 in the previous chapter we learn that Saul smote the Amalekites. Samuel is sent by Jehovah with a new message to Saul telling him to smite Amalek again and to destroy utterly all that they have. It involves another task for Saul. He had been fully established as king and is therefore called upon to discharge his responsibilities and prove that he is fit for the position which he held. Amalek is the great foe of Gods people and typifies, as we have seen in our annotation on Exodus (chapter 17), the flesh and its lusts. Israel should have war with Amalek from generation to generation, and the remembrance of Amalek was to be completely blotted out. Even so the flesh is always the enemy of the children of God. The flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh. It is enmity against God. With this enemy Saul was to war and to destroy them utterly. But Saul at heart was nothing but an Amalekite. He gathers his army to do what Jehovah had demanded. The Lord gives Amalek into his hands. Then comes the significant but.–But Saul and his people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good and would not utterly destroy them, but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
The lesson is a deeply solemn one, and wider in application than perhaps we would easily allow. If Amalek stands here as elsewhere for the lusts of the flesh, alas, is it not true that we measure our judgment of these often more by our own tastes than by the simple letter of the Word of God? How easy it is to judge the multitude of things, and spare the worst of all, the Agag! And things which minister to the lusts of the flesh are unhesitatingly allowed, if only they are not what to common estimate would be considered vile. Our judgments, how apt are they to be those of the world at large rather than of God,–in the light of nature rather than of the sanctuary! (Numerical Bible)
Then the Lord, who had been the silent witness of all this, told Samuel about it. A night of sorrow and of prayer followed for the man of God. How he must have pleaded with the Lord for unhappy Saul! Samuel and Saul meet. Strange words which came from the lips of disobedient Saul: Blessed be thou of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD. It was a falsehood. He then hears the sentence. When thou wast little in thine own sight thou becamest the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee King over Israel! And now he had become great in his own sight and little in the sight of the Lord. Solemn are the prophets words to him. Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, He hath also rejected thee from being king. This was the irrevocable sentence of Jehovah. Alas! Sauls confession but reveals his true character once more. He sinned and transgressed against the voice of the Lord, because he feared the people and hearkened to their voice. Such a one was unworthy to be king over the Lords people. It is a sad spectacle, the unrelenting Samuel and the deposed king. And Samuel deals with Agag in judgment as he deserved it.
The statement and Samuel saw Saul no more until the days of his death is taken by critics in connection with chapter 19:24 as an indication of the diversity of the sources from which the books of Samuel have been derived. But it is incorrect. Samuel did not come to see Saul again, though Saul prophesied before Samuel. However chapter 28:11-19 must be connected with Samuels final word to Saul in this chapter.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 2925, bc 1079, An, Ex, Is, 412
The Lord: 1Sa 15:17, 1Sa 15:18, 1Sa 9:16, 1Sa 10:1
hearken: 1Sa 15:16, 1Sa 12:14, 1Sa 13:13, 2Sa 23:2, 2Sa 23:3, 1Ch 22:12, 1Ch 22:13, Psa 2:10, Psa 2:11
Reciprocal: Gen 14:7 – Amalekites Deu 25:19 – thou shalt Jos 11:15 – he left nothing 1Sa 9:15 – the Lord 2Ki 9:3 – I have anointed Joh 10:35 – unto Act 13:21 – Saul
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
A SHIPWRECKED LIFE
King over His people Israel.
1Sa 15:1
The story of Saul is among the saddest which Scripture anywhere contains.
I. Notice first the singular elements of nobleness which are to be traced in his natural character, so that his moral stature did not altogether belie the stateliness of his outward frame. There is nothing which so often oversets the whole balance of a mind, which brings out faults unsuspected before, as a sudden and abrupt elevation from a very low to a very high position. But Saul gives no token that the change has wrought this mischief in him. The Lords anointed, Israels king, he bides his time, returns with a true simplicity to humblest offices in his fathers house. He would gladly, and that out of a genuine modesty, hide and withdraw himself from the peoples choice. Slights and offences done to himself he magnanimously overlooks. He ventures his life far for the people whom he rules, as one who has rightly understood that foremost in place and honour means also foremost in peril and toil. Saul is clear from every charge of that sin which left the darkest blot upon Davids life; seems very sparingly to have allowed himself that licence which almost all Oriental monarchs have so largely claimed. There was in him also a true capacity for loving. Of David we are told he loved him greatly. Even at his worst, what glimpses of a better mind from time to time appear! The deep discords of his spirit are not incapable of being subdued into harmonies, as sweet bells jangled or out of tune which for an instant, though, alas! but for an instant, recover their sweetness. And, most noticeable of all, the love which he could feel he could also inspire. If then there was a shipwreck here, they were not paltry wares, but treasures of great price, which went down into the deep.
II. The history of Saul brings home to us these facts: (1) That the life we now live is a life of probation; that God takes men and puts them in certain conditions to try them. We are each put upon our trial as certainly as Saul was upon his. (2) All the finer qualities of Saul display themselves at the outset of his career. They gradually fade and fail from him, pride, meanwhile, and caprice, and jealousy, and envy, and an open contempt and defiance of God coming in their room, until at last of all the high qualities which he once owned, only the courage, last gift to forsake a man, often abiding when every other has departeduntil this only remains. (3) We learn from Saul not to build on any good thing which we have in ourselves. Let us bring that good thing to God and receive it back from God with that higher consecration which He alone can give.
Archbishop Trench.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
To Obey Is Better Than Sacrifice
1Sa 15:1-28
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
Disobedience is black with the frown of God. Sin is the transgression of the Law. Disobedience is taking one’s own way, as against following God’s way. The Spirit, in Isaiah, sums this up for us-“We have turned every one to his own way.”
We know that we were one time sons of disobedience, walking after our flesh, and fulfilling its desires.
When we consider the obedience of all the physical creation to God’s fixed laws, and purposes, we tremble as we behold intelligent man, the chief of His creation, refusing to walk in God’s will and way.
The Prophet said of Israel, “They are revolted and gone.” God placed the sand as a barrier to the mighty deep, saying to the sea, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further”; yet God’s very own nation, against which He had placed barriers of abundant grace and mercy, of showers of blessings, and of holy and righteous laws, leaped over every restraint and have gone.
It was by disobedience that sin first came in. Adam and Eve thus entailed a race in woe. The world is filled with the wreckage of disobedience.
1. There is filial disobedience. God’s Word says, “Children, obey your parents,” but it appears to us, sometimes, that young America has changed the reading, to “Parents, obey your children.” However, with the first part changed, the verse that gives the rewards of obedience, should be made to read, “Parents, obey your children; for this is highly pleasing to young America, and will bring them all to the dogs, the ditch and the devil.”
2. There is disobedience at school. Children in the schools of our land, soon display their true spirit. Carefully prepared laws of conduct are laid down by school authorities. Alas, how many of the young revolt against these laws! Usually it is the child who has disregarded parental authority at home, who is first to disobey at school,
3. There is disobedience to the state. The nation, of necessity, operates under authority. With its governing power taken away, the land would run riot with wickedness. There is, even now, a hue and cry of “Down with the government.” Such a cry is mere madness. There are those who find no greater pleasure than “putting it over on the government”; they laugh at every successful breaking of law. There are the holdup men; who regard neither God, nor men, nor human life: they run riot against the law. Again, there are those who ruthlessly break, at every opportunity, other laws, just as vital to the public safety.
4. There is disobedience to the laws of God. There are laws of diet. We do not mean to say for one minute that saints are under Jewish laws; we do mean to say that laws of diet given to Israel must have had the health of God’s people in mind.
There are laws regulating morals. These Mosaic Laws concerning a large sweep of human conduct are vital to honor and sobriety. No one, Jew or Gentile, can afford to ruthlessly trample beneath their feet such basic commands.
There are orders from God directed to saints in their obligations to governments and to earthly lawmakers. These should be obeyed.
Whatsoever may be said of Grace, it does not give any believer liberty to live as he lists, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. Grace teaches us how to live soberly, righteously, and godly. Grace leads us into a life of love; and love is the fulfilling of the law.
I. GOD’S CALL TO OBEDIENCE TO SAUL (1Sa 15:1)
There must have been some fear in Samuel’s heart relative to Saul’s willingness to follow the Lord fully. Therefore this solemn call was given to him. It does seem that men would be afraid to disobey the plain and positive Word of the Living God.
Of Christ, when He came to earth, it was said: “Lo, I come: in the volume of the Book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God.” He said, “I do always those things that please Him.”
Should we seek to be less obedient to God?
The Bible has many calls to obedience; and many warnings against disobedience. When Moses stood before Israel, with what solicitude did he remind her of how God had led her through forty years, to see whether she would keep His Commandments. Then Moses said: “Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God, in not keeping His Commandments; * * lest * * thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God.”
We can even now hear God’s plaintive words, “Oh, that My people had hearkened unto Me, * * I * * should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat.”
The paths of Biblical history are strewn with the wreckage of disobedient persons, and tribes, and nations.
God seems even now to be saying to us, as Samuel said to Saul, “Now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.”
Let us solemnly enter into a covenant with our God that we will seek to know His will, and that, knowing it, we will perform it, even as He has said.
II. A FAILURE TO OBEY THE VOICE OF THE LORD (1Sa 15:9)
We have no need to discuss the severity of God’s command. Saul was to destroy the Amalekites, both “man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Why should we marvel at so severe a judgment? The iniquity of the Amalekites had come to the full.
God is a just Judge, but as righteous as just. If we speak of the severity of God against sin; let us speak, withal, of the fact that He spared not His own Son, but freely delivered Him up for us all. On the Cross we reach both the climax of God’s retributive justice, and the height of His unfathomable love-in Christ, the Substitute, is judgment; to the believing sinner, there is mercy, and love, and grace.
Saul did not utterly destroy the Amalekites; he spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and oxen, and fatlings, and lambs, even all that was good.
Obedience must be without questionings and quibblings. Obedience must be prompt, “The commandments of the Lord require haste.” Obedience must be entire, wanting nothing. Caleb and Joshua followed the Lord fully, doing all His will.
“Ours is not to reason why;
Ours is but to do, or die.”
How many there are who run well for a season, yet, Saul-like, before their task is done, they fall down on their Divine orders, and thus merit condemnation, losing their rewards!
Faulty obedience does some things, but not all. It obeys, where obedience pleases the flesh, but it spares the best of the sheep and the oxen. It obeys only where obedience does not demand cross-bearing, and self-negations.
III. GRIEF AT DISOBEDIENCE (1Sa 15:11-12)
Grief at Saul’s disobedience was twofold.
1. There was the grief of God. God said, “It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king.”
Saul’s disobedience meant no less that this, as God viewed it: “He is turned back from following Me.” That is, Saul no longer acknowledged Divine authority as final and supreme. Therefore, Saul was no longer worthy of trust and confidence.
He who disobeys God, fails to keep God as Lord in his life, refuses to accept headship.
God repented Himself, because He saw Israel’s peril under such a king. He knew Saul’s frailties; He understood Saul’s imperfections. When Saul cast off the Lord, he brought Israel under the leadership of a man unworthy of trust.
God repented Himself, because He saw Saul’s own bitter collapse. Saul was not altogether disobedient, but the opening wedge had been made, which was sure to be followed by an ever widening breach.
God is zealous for the conservation of the truth, and for the integrity, and the safe-guarding of His people. Therefore He grieved at Saul’s sin.
2. There was the grief of Samuel. Samuel cried unto the Lord all night. He was a Prophet, and he saw the beginning of the end of the household of Saul. He was loath to visit Saul, and pronounce upon him God’s rejection and curse; and yet, Samuel knew that God could not brook disobedience; he also knew that God must deal in all severity on the beginnings of evil.
Sin in the camp always caused the Lord to turn away from His people. It is the same today. An individual, or a church, who walks in disobedience to the Lord, is at once under the ban, and no longer under the blessing of the Lord.
Christ said three things about obedience. He said, “If ye love Me, keep My Commandments.” He said, “He that hath My Commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me.” Finally, He said, “If a man love Me, he will keep My Word.” Over against these three things, Christ said, “My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.”
IV. FEIGNING OBEDIENCE (1Sa 15:13)
There were three steps in Saul’s hypocrisy.
1. Saul professed to be obedient. Saul said to Samuel, “Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.”
Saul knew that he had done no such thing. He had kept Agag alive; he had kept alive the best of the sheep and oxen, and fatlings and lambs.
Alas, alas, when those who have sinned, say, “We have not sinned”: when those who are full of sin, say, “We have no sin!” There is something in the flesh that delights in putting on piety. The flesh loves to appear religious. It feigns to “have fellowship with Him,” when, in truth, it walks in darkness. It boasts of its humility. It seeks the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and dotes upon being called of men, “Rabbi! Rabbi!”
Saul was a past master in all of this. He was profuse in his professions to obedience, even though he was, in actuality, far from obedient.
2. Saul professed to have spared the sheep and oxen and fatlings and lambs for offerings unto the Lord. How loathsome was such a course! Yet, there are many who seek to excuse sin by some pious accomplishment. The thief delights in giving money to charity, as though that would lessen his guilt, and appease a wrathful God. The cheat and swindler and oppressor of the poor, parades some gift to the public benefaction, in order to quiet the pangs of his conscience, and in order to parade a love of men which he in no wise possesses. We have even known men, who, by the sale of whisky have enriched their pocketbooks by destroying homes, and by creating widows, to build some hospital or other to demonstrate the bigness of their hearts toward the sick and sorrowing.
3. Saul blamed the people for his disobedience. This was Adam-like. Adam said: “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, * * and I did eat.” Saul said, “The people took of the spoil.” Of course the people did “take”-but Saul was their king, and responsible for their act. They took because he endorsed the taking.
V. THE PROPHET’S VITAL QUESTIONINGS (1Sa 15:14; 1Sa 15:19; 1Sa 15:22)
1. Samuel’s First Question. Samuel said, “What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?”
It will not be difficult for God to discover to the hypocrites the folly of their claims. God keeps tab on all our deeds and words. He can quickly, and quietly expose the fallacy of any false way, by setting before one the actual record of his deeds.
To him who falsely says, “I am holy,” or, “I am clean,” or, “I am innocent,” God will say, “What meaneth this, and that, and this other deed of iniquity?” There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed. The sheep bleat too loudly, and the cattle low too strong for one to hide his sin from God.
2. Samuel’s Second Question. “Wherefore then didst thou * * fly upon the spoil?” Saul’s greediness is shown in Samuel’s word, “Fly upon the spoil.” Saul had been eager to save the best for his own enrichment.
Vaunting a false claim cannot deceive God, for God looketh on the heart. He sees the thoughts and the intents that lie back of our deeds. He knows whether the lips speak the truth, because He liveth back of the words, even within the heart, from whose fullness the mouth speaketh.
3. Samuel’s Third Question. “Hath the Lord as great delight in burntofferings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?” Beloved, let us away with forms of worship, and gifts at God’s altar, and long prayers, when they are not backed by an obedient life.
Think you that God is pleased with church ordinances when the heart is not right? Above all things God demands obedience to the Word. Creeds without conduct, profit but little; doctrine without duty, is of no avail. The one who keeps the Word, and is its doer will be blessed in his deed.
VI. A CONFESSION OF SIN NOT ACCEPTABLE (1Sa 15:24)
Saul confessed his sin. He said, “I have sinned.” He also said, “I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord.” Mark, however, the part of his confession which spoiled it. He excused all that he had done, on this: “Because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.”
The Lord has said, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” Our confession of sin, however, must be genuine. Not every one that sayeth, “Lord, Lord,” is accepted. We may acknowledge our wrong while excusing it. In so doing we will never obtain mercy.
Why should Saul have feared the people? Why should he have obeyed their voice? Was he not their king and leader?
Even the people, themselves, who were under authority to Saul, would not have been excused by the Lord if they had obeyed Saul, and in so doing had disobeyed the Lord.
The words of Peter linger with us-“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
If God forgives sin, when sinners excuse their sins, then, many unregenerate and unclean hearts would be excused.
One man might say, “I was angry, but You will excuse me, Lord, because You know I came by it honestly. I inherited it from my father.”
Another would say, “You will forgive me, Lord; I grant that I sinned, but my associates were to blame. I did not have power to resist their pleas.”
Still another would say, “I sinned, I transgressed the commandment of the Lord, but I was threatened with persecution, or with death, and I was afraid to obey fully.”
Pilate would say, “I sinned in that I delivered Christ to be crucified, but I washed my hands from His Blood, because the people compelled me to sin.”
Remember that God demands obedience under any and every condition.
VII. THE PENALTY OF DISOBEDIENCE (1Sa 15:26-28)
The Lord who had refused mercy to the Amalekites could not now grant mercy unto Saul. Samuel knew that Saul’s heart was not right with God. Saul had rejected the Word of the Lord, and the Lord had rejected Saul from being king over Israel.
Thus, as Samuel turned about to go away, Saul laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
We who profess to know the Lord must not sin against the Lord. There has come a spirit of indifference to sin upon the people of today. They seem to think that they can live as they list, and still have favor with God.
God has said that it is an evil thing and bitter that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God. It is no light matter to break tryst with the Almighty.
When Peter sinned, we are sure that the Lord was sympathetic toward him, for the Lord knew he had been sorely tried, and that in his heart of hearts he still loved Him.
The Lord showed Peter His love in the look that He cast upon him. It was not, however, until after Peter’s three days of utter darkness that the Lord spoke peace to Peter. As the Lord hung upon the Cross He spoke to this one, and to that one, but to Peter there was not a word.
Samuel said unto Saul, “The Strength of Israel * * is not a man, that He should repent.”
AN ILLUSTRATION
NO USE TO SCRUB MUD
“A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.”
I was staying one day at an inn in one of the valleys of Northern Italy, where the floor was dreadfully dirty. I had it in my mind to advise the landlady to scrub it, but when I perceived it was made of mud, I reflected that the more she scrubbed the worse it would be. The man who knows his own heart soon percieves that his corrupt nature admits of no improvement; there must be a new nature implanted, or the man will be only “washed to deeper stains.” “Ye must be born again.” Ours is not a case for mending, but for making new.-C. H. Spurgeon.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
THE MAN AFTER GODS HEART
ANOTHER COMMISSION FOR SAMUEL (1Sa 15:1-9)
How long a time elapsed since the last chapter is indeterminable. Sauls victory seems to have driven the Philistines out of Israels territory, and to have been followed by successful sallies against other enemies.
He had been warned of God that because of his presumption at Gilgal (chap. 13), the kingdom would be taken from him and given to another; but God seems willing to allow him another chance, or at least another test of his quality to be His vice-regent in Israel before God executes His purpose (1Sa 15:1).
For an explanation of 1Sa 15:2, look up Exo 17:8-14; Num 24:20; and Deu 25:17-19. We have seen the reason for Gods anger against such nations as Amalek in that they represented the powers of darkness, and sought as the instruments of Satan to frustrate His purpose of redemption of the world through Israel.
SAULS REJECTION FROM THE KINGDOM (1Sa 15:10-31)
This part of the chapter requires little comment. Notice Sauls falsehood (1Sa 15:13), and his self-justifying spirit (1Sa 15:15; 1Sa 15:21). Notice the principle in verse 22, and the final rejection of him in 1Sa 15:23. Nor is his repentance sincere, inasmuch as he is still trying to excuse himself (1Sa 15:24), and desires to make a good showing before the people (1Sa 15:30).
Gods Repenting and Not Repenting
Here is a seeming contradiction which needs a word of explanation. Twice is it said that it repented the Lord that He made Saul king (1Sa 15:11; 1Sa 15:35), and in another place that He is not a man that He should repent (1Sa 15:20). In the last case, repent is to be taken in the positive sense that Gods decrees are unchangeable, which is necessary to be believed of the divine nature.
But in the former case it is to be taken in the figurative sense, as explaining in terms capable of human understanding why He was about to act as He did.
He intends to alter His purpose with Saul because of the latters wickedness. It would not have been altered but for this, and yet He foreknew in choosing Saul that this would take place. In the larger sense, He did not repent or change His mind at all, while in the narrower sense He did. But since the narrower was included in the larger, it is to be regarded as part of His original decree, from which point of view God did not repent, but carried out His purpose as from the beginning.
THE CHOICE OF DAVID (1Sa 16:1-13)
When in chapter 13 it was said that the Lord sought Him a man after His own heart, the reference was to David. But it is not to be supposed that David was a perfect man in the natural and moral sense, for we know to the contrary. It will be found, however, that while he was a sinner like Saul, he was a regenerated sinner while Saul was not, so far as man can judge. With all his sin, David loved God supremely, and his underlying motive was to do His will. His history, checkered as it is, establishes this fact, and the sense in which he was a man after Gods own heart is seen by a comparison of his history with that of Saul.
There is nothing of difficulty in this section of Scripture.
QUESTIONS
1. How extensive does the conquest of the Philistines seem to have been?
2. What further opportunity does God afford Saul?
3. Have you refreshed your memory concerning the history of the Amalekites?
4. Have you located them on the map?
5. Can you quote the principle in verse 22?
6. What indicates the insincerity of Saul?
7. How would you explain the apparent contradiction about Gods repenting?
8. In what sense could David be said to be a man after Gods heart?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
1Sa 15:1-2. Hearken thou unto the voice of the Lord Thou hast erred already; now regain Gods favour by thy exact obedience to what he commands. Thus saith the Lord, I remember, &c. Now I will avenge those old injuries of the Amalekites on their children, who continue in their parents practices. God here refers to that most notorious instance of cruelty, inhumanity, and impiety, their invading and destroying, as far as in them lay, by treachery and surprise, and that uninjured and unprovoked, the people of Israel, when they were coming out of Egypt, and were manifestly under the immediate and miraculous protection of Almighty God. This was a sin, says Dr. Delaney, at once so inhuman and so atheistical, as perhaps cannot be paralleled in any one instance from the foundation of the world, and therefore it is no wonder if this flagrant act of villany and impiety produced that dreadful decree against them, recorded Exo 17:14, I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven: and again, 1Sa 15:16, The Lord hath sworn that he will have war with Amalek, from generation to generation. To reconcile this severe decree with the principles of justice, and Gods own declaration, (Ezekiel 18.,) of his limiting the vengeance of guilt to the person of the offender, we need only to reflect upon one plain observation, with which every days experience sufficiently furnishes us, that nothing is more common than for children to be unrepentant, and, it may be, improved and inveterate in the sins of their ancestors: and that nothing is more easy to the divine prescience than to foresee this, and to pronounce upon it. And that this was the case of the Amalekites, sufficiently appears from their history. For, as their fathers attempted upon the Israelites, when under the manifest protection of God, their sons continued to do the same upon every occasion, though the same protection became every day more and more conspicuous by many and repeated instances. When he came out of Egypt When he was newly come out of cruel and long bondage, and was now weak, and weary, and faint, and hungry, Deu 25:18; and therefore it was barbarous, instead of that pity which even nature prompted them to afford, to add affliction to the afflicted; it was also horrid impiety to fight against God himself, and to lift up their hand in a manner, against the Lords throne, while they struck at that people which God had brought forth in so stupendous a way.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 15:2. I remember what Amalek did; Num 17:8; and what he has often repeated, in the effusion of innocent blood. He joined Midian, and the children of the east, in a bloody and unprovoked invasion of Israel. Jdg 6:3.
1Sa 15:3. Utterly destroy all. God himself passed the sentence. The Kenites, (1Sa 15:6, and Jdg 1:4.) live for their kindness, while the Amalekites die for their cruelties. But many saved themselves by flight, for David found them still occupying their country. 1Sa 27:8.
1Sa 15:9. Spared Agag. Sesostris, on making his triumphant entrance into Memphis, metropolis of Egypt, had his chariot drawn by four kings.
1Sa 15:12. A place. Hebrews Yad, a hand. A monument of the victory, suddenly raised by the hands of the army. This custom was universal among all the gentile nations. Jos 22:10.
1Sa 15:23. Rebellion is displeasing to the Lord, as the sin of chesem, divination. He who sets up his own will against the will of God offends, as he who sets up an idol and a teraphim.
1Sa 15:33. As thy sword, &c. Samuel passed the sentence, being a judge, of blood for blood, leaving the soldiers to execute his commands.
REFLECTIONS.
From the utmost vengeance of heaven here denounced against Amalek, we ought to trace and infer the magnitude of their sin. Amalek was descended from Esau. Gen 36:2-4. 1Ch 1:36. Therefore he was related to Israel, and had apostatized from the best of paternal examples in Isaac. Now, this subtle nation, instead of rejoicing at the emancipation of his brother from Egypt, and adoring God in his works, laid in ambush, and smote the aged, the sick, and the weak who were hindmost in the route. Exo 17:14; Exo 17:16. Emboldened by these advantages he assembled all his strength, and fought a hard battle with Joshua. Scarcely a war had happened but Amalek had unfurled his unprovoked and bloody banners against his brother. Jdg 3:13; Jdg 6:3. Of all this effusion of innocent blood he never repented. Agag himself had made women childless: and now that his measure was full, justice listened to the cry of blood. This is the first offensive war, and specially by the divine command; for the character of the Hebrew theocracy was hostile to war. It was impossible for these crimes, accompanied with four hundred years of correspondent wickedness, to go unpunished. So Balaam had predicted; Num 24:20; and so Moses had commanded before his death. Deu 25:17-18.
The little infants of Amalek were involved in temporal death with their guilty fathers. The equity of this punishment is frequently illustrated by Gods dealing with mankind according to his covenant; and while this law exhibits the Lord as the arbiter of life and death, it should be a weighty argument with all parents to obedience; for children are at all times very much implicated in the prosperity, or the afflictions of their parents.
In this expedition, a mission worthy of angels, Saul discovered a character very much degenerate from his sentiments when first anointed. He discovered his pride by sparing Agag, the finest and most guilty person in the nation, to grace his triumph; and the people taking a licence from his conduct, spared the best of the cattle and of the flocks. This was a sin of covetousness and pride; this was Achans sin, for all Amalek was accursed as Jericho, though many escaped death by flight. Joshua 7. This sin tarnished the spotless purity of Gods judgments: neighbouring nations, instead of being sanctified with fear, would say that Israel had cut off Amalek, not for iniquity, but for spoil.Saul having lost the humility and grace of his first anointing, he was not only proud, but vainglorious. He set up a pillar to commemorate his victory; he boasted to Samuel that he had done as the Lord had commanded; and finally became so mean as to beg the prophet to honour him before the people. Need we wonder that God should reject so faithless a servant? Let us learn therefore to execute Gods just decrees against the Amalek of our corruptions with a firm and unrelenting hand. Let us tremble at disobedience, and at every vestige of lurking pride; for sins so fostered may prove as awful to us, as to Saul in the day of trial.
Saul, by his former unbelief and presumptuous sacrifice in Gilgal, and now by sparing the best spoil of Amalek, so far provoked the Lord that his repentance was not accepted to continue him in the kingdom. In vain did he, after blaming the people, acknowledge his sin; in vain did he offer peace-offerings, the Holy One of Israel had no pleasure in a camp polluted with Achans sin. In vain did Samuel cry to the Lord for a whole night, and continue his mourning till the anointing of David; the Strength of Israel, or giver of victory, would neither repent nor lie. He lost the crown as Esau lost the birthright. He lost his crown by sparing bloody Amalek, and it was the lot of an Amalekite to take it off his head on Gilboa, and bring it to David! Ah, how piercing when Samuels mantle rent, to hear the prophet say, the Lord has taken the kingdom from thee, and given it to thy neighbour. So when a man departs from the Lord, and falls into wilful sin, every circumstance around him joins the terrors of his mind to preach the judgments of God. The sound of the clock seems to say, that divine justice is ready to strike his soul with the vengeance due to sin.
From the fall of this misguided king, all classes of men may feel the force of Samuels words: Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. The man who goes on his way with a stedfast and simple mind shall be exalted in the issue; but he who goes through life sinning and repenting, may sin once too often, and place himself beyond the reach of a Samuels intercession. From the time the Lord answered him not, Sauls steps were doubtful and calamitous, his temper violent and wicked, and his death tragic and inglorious to Israel. May every man who began his course with humility, but who on being exalted a little by providence, became imperious and proud, profit by the errors of Saul, who once had a prospect of becoming the greatest of kings, and the happiest of men.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
XV. The War against Amalek; Sauls Disobedience and Deposition (E). A section of a secondary narrative; according to the scheme adopted here, the last section of this document was 1Sa 3:3 to 1Sa 4:1.
1Sa 15:1-9. Samuel bids Saul attack Amalek and subject it to the herem (pp. 99, 114), or sacred ban, by which all living creatures were put to death in honour of Yahweh. (Cf. the cases of Jericho and Achan, Joshua 6 f.) Saul called a general levy to a rendezvous in the south of Judahthe numbers are probably exaggeratedand advanced against the city of Amalek, possibly a tribal sanctuary which served as the headquarters of this nomad tribe; and lay in ambush in a neighbouring valley. The Kenites (Gen 15:19, Jdg 1:16) were dwelling amongst the Amalekites, but at a warning from Saul they departed. Then Saul carried out Samuels instructions, except that the Amalekite king, Agag, and the best of the cattle were spared.
1Sa 15:7. from Havilah to Shur: ICC is probably right in suggesting that our author [i.e. the author of the document from which this section is taken], whose geography is not very distinct, borrowed the whole phrase from Genesis, without verifying it, as a description of the whole extent of the Amalekite territory, wrongly identifying the latter with the Ishmaelites. The statement that the whole tribe was exterminated need not be taken literally; there would be refugees. The tribe appears again in ch. 30, and in 1Ch 4:43.
1Sa 15:10-31. Yahweh tells Samuel of Sauls disobedience. Samuels sympathies were with Saul; no doubt he still regarded him as the hope of Israel; and was angry with YahwehOT ideas of reverence were more elastic than oursand spent the night in intercession, which clearly met with no response. In the morning he set out to look for Saul, and was told that he had gone to Carmel (1Sa 15:12), a place to the S. of Hebron, also the scene of the Nabal story, not the better-known Carmel on the coast. Here he had set up a trophy of his victory, and had gone on to the sanctuary at Gilgal to sacrifice thank-offerings (1Sa 15:21). Samuel followed him and was met by Saul with a profession that he had fulfilled his commands. He explained that the best of the cattle had been reserved for sacrifice. Such a proceeding, however, would not have been entirely disinterested, as an ordinary sacrifice was a feast, and the Amalekite spoils would have provided a magnificent banquet. Samuel rejects Sauls excuses, saying finally:
Is Yahweh pleased with whole burnt offerings and sacrifices
As with obedience to the voice of Yahweh?
Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice,
And to hearken than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And self-will as the iniquity of teraphim.
Because thou hast rejected the word of Yahweh,
He hath rejected thee from being king.
This oracle, like many of the prophetic utterances, is given in the form of verse, which imparted to it a special solemnity. It summarises much of the teaching of the prophets of the eighth centuryAmos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micahteaching which was repeatedly endorsed by their successors; in true religion conduct and character come before the external observances of worship, especially those which have no intrinsic spiritual value. The cruelty of the particular act of obedience with which these lines are associated detracts from their impressiveness; but there was no question of humanity at issue between Saul and Samuel; Saul had slain men, women, and children, and the writer probably means us to understand that he had spared Agag to gratify his vanity by exhibiting the conquered prince as his captive. If the document comes from the closing period of the Jewish monarchy, men were not only under the influence of the lofty teaching of the prophets; at the same time their feelings were embittered towards foreigners by the ruthless cruelties they had so often experienced at their hands. Dt. gives us an example of humanity towards fellow-countrymen combined with savage cruelty towards foreigners (Deu 7:2; Deu 22:1-4). Sauls penitent prayer for pardon was rejected, and he was told that the kingship would be given to someone more worthy.
1Sa 15:23. teraphim: Gen 31:19, p. 100.
1Sa 15:29. the Strength of Israel: the meaning of the word translated Strength is uncertain; RVm Victory or Glory; LXX and Israel shall be rent in two.
1Sa 15:32-35. Then Samuel executed the herem upon Agag, hewing him in pieces at the altar at Gilgal. The text. and translation of 1Sa 15:32 are uncertain; RVm gives cheerfully for delicately, but we should probably accept the rendering of ICC, based on the LXX, And Agag came unto him trembling. And Agag said, Surely death is bitter.
Then Saul and Samuel separated, never to meet again, though Samuel mourned for Saul. In 1Sa 19:23 Saul comes to Samuel at Naioth, but this of course belongs to a different document.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
God had a more solemn controversy with the Amalekites than with the Philistines. The mere formal worship typified by the Philistines is empty; but Amalekite “lusts of the flesh” are a deadly enemy that had afflicted Israel from the time of their leaving Egypt. Samuel reminds Saul that it was the Lord who had sent him to anoint Saul as king over Israel, and calls for his attention to the authoritative words of God.
God remembered the early attack of this bitter enemy of Israel (Exo 17:8), taking advantage of the feeble and faint and weary, who were the “stragglers” at the rear of the company (Deu 25:17-19). He had declared “I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Exo 17:14).
Now that Israel had a king, God calls upon him to attack Amalek and completely destroy all that they have, not sparing man of woman, child or babe in arms, together with all their animals. Of course God would command no such thing in this present dispensation of His grace, but the iniquity of Amalek was such that destruction was the only righteous remedy. It may seem dreadful to kill little children, but at least they would be taken to heaven, while it would be a different matter if they were reared in bitter enmity against God and the truth of His Word.
The typical lesson for us also is most important. Since Amalek stands for the lusts of the flesh, then we should spare nothing of this cunning enemy that is always ready to attack us in underhand ways. This therefore involves the self-judgment that should at all times characterize the children of God.
Saul is able to amass a great army of 200,000, plus 10,000 men of Judah. When God gives commands, He opens the way for our carrying these out. Saul begins with a city of Amalek, waiting however to give opportunity for the Kenites to separate themselves from Amalek, for the Kenites were not the same people, and if associated with them would be exposed to the same judgment as they. The Kenites were of Midianite background (Jdg 1:16; Exo 2:15-21), and friendly to Israel. They were evidently of the kind who could get along well with anyone, and therefore were in danger of making wrong friendship
Then God gives Saul a decisive victory over the Amalekites, and he “utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.” This evidently refers to all that they were able to find, for we read of the Amalekites again in 1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1. Of course the typical significance is that, however decisively we may judge the lusts of the flesh, they always have a way of springing up again, just as poisonous weeds.
But Saul and the people spared Agag, the king of the Amalekites and also the best of their domesticated animals. All that was of inferior quality they destroyed. This was a fatal blunder: mere natural thoughts enter in to take precedence over the express command of God. Of course Agag the king was the worst of all Amalek, the figurehead of all its opposition to God. His name means, “I will overtop.” This signifies the pride of being who I am, which is at the base of all the evil of the lusts of the flesh. If this root is not judged, but merely some of the details of lustful things, then the evil is not rightly judged at all. The best of the animals speaks of those things that are the more refined lusts, not glaringly bad, but which can put on a nice appearance that deceives people into thinking they are not so bad.
God cannot let this pass. He speaks solemnly to Samuel, telling him He has repented of making Saul king because he has turned back from following the Lord, deliberately ignoring His clear commandments. The soul of Samuel is affected to its depths, and all night he cries to God in prayer. Of course his mourning over Saul was directly connected with his concern for God’s people Israel. On the one hand, when a leader fails, there is a great tendency of accusing him. On the other hand, those who are more friendly with him are likely to excuse him. Neither of these attitudes is right. How much better to be like Samuel and to pray for those leaders who wrongly influence the people of God, rather than either defending them or becoming angry with them.
After praying all night Samuel rose early in the morning to go to meet Saul, and was informed that Saul came to Carmel where “he set him up a place” before going down to Gilgal. He knew it was right to return to Gilgal after a victory, for it speaks of the self-judgment of our own flesh, which must not be allowed to exalt itself because of a victory. But Saul exalted himself BEFORE going to Gilgal. His settling up “a place” shows that he wanted some public recognition, perhaps a monument, to the effect that he had gained this victory, before he would take the low place of attributing no credit to himself! Therefore, coming to Gilgal after setting up a place was really hypocrisy. Let us take this seriously to heart, for we too may easily become hypocritical in our claims of judging the flesh, while desiring the recognition of men.
On meeting Samuel, Saul uses impressive words that were empty so far as Samuel was concerned: “Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” He was evidently not at all prepared for the response of Samuel: “What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” But though Saul acknowledges that these have been taken from the Amalekites, he excuses himself by blaming the people of Israel for sparing the animals, but only the best, he adds, in order that they might be sacrificed to the Lord. Was Saul not king? Did he not give the people clear orders as from God that ALL the animals were to be destroyed? It is clearly evident that Saul agreed with the people’s desire to spare the sheep and oxen.
Therefore Samuel speaks to him most solemnly, declaring to him the words the Lord had spoken. Saul is reminded that when he was little in his own sight the Lord anointed him as king of Israel. Did he no longer think he was little enough to be required to obey the word of God? The Lord had sent him to utterly destroy the confirmed enemies of God and of Israel. Samuel tells him plainly he did not obey the Word of God, but dared to “fly upon the spoil.” God easily discerned that the motives were not those of genuine desire to sacrifice to Him, but motives of greed. Israel knew that if they offered peace offerings to God, the offerer would get a good share for himself.
In spite of the exposure, Saul protests that he actually had obeyed the Lord, had taken captive Agag, the Amalekite king, and had utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But why had he spared Agag? Was this obedience to God’s word? Partial obedience is not obedience at all. Then a second time he tries to excuse the sparing of the sheep and oxen by blaming it on the people, but insisting that they did so with the object of sacrificing these to the Lord. But when God had given orders to him, then he was responsible to give the same orders to the people, and see that they were followed. God rightly makes him responsible for the whole matter.
Samuel therefore speaks as God had directed him, questioning Saul if the Lord has as great delight in offerings (even burnt offerings) and sacrifices as in obedience to His word. He answers the question himself, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” When there is plain disobedience to God’s word, then sacrificing is a mere pretense of honoring Him. But there is still stronger condemnation of this evil. “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry.” One who is guilty of this is therefore opening the door for Satan, for he is virtually closing the door against God’s word. This is the very reason for the flood of evil with which the world is filled today, which is all too sadly seen even in the professing church.
Then God’s sentence against Saul is pronounced with irrevocable solemnity. Because he had rejected the word of the Lord (not merely that he had misunderstood it), then the Lord had rejected him from reigning as king of Israel. From this point on the matter was fully decided. While Saul continued to reign for some years after this, yet this was only because the sentence was held in abeyance. It is the same with all the governments of the world today. All have been already rejected by God, yet allowed to continue until God sees fit to remove them and give to the Lord Jesus His rightful authority over all creation.
After Samuel pronounces God’s sentence against Saul, Saul finally confesses to Samuel, “I have sinned,” adding that he had transgressed the commandment of the Lord and Samuel’s words. He admits his fear of the people (which had more effect on him than the fear of God. No doubt it was true that the people wanted to take some of the spoil, and were able to influence Saul. But Saul had clearly heard the word of God. Perhaps the people had not heard this directly, but Saul was responsible to tell them absolutely that God required the utter destruction of animals as well as of people.
He asks Samuel to pardon his sin, and turn again with him, that he might worship the Lord. If there was repentance in this at all, it was very shallow. For true repentance involves willingness to bear the just results of one’s sins, as in the case of the thief crucified with the Lord: “we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds” (Luk 23:41). It seems that Saul thought the mere admission of his sin would make everything clear, so that he could go on worshiping the Lord as though nothing had happened.
For this reason Samuel told him “I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.” This sentence would not change, and Saul must bow to it. As Samuel turned to leave, however, Saul took hold of the skirt of Samuel’s mantle, tearing it. Evidently Saul was anxious lest Samuel’s disapproval would discredit him in the eyes of the people. Samuel however uses this occasion to impress on Saul the truth he had told him, that the Lord had torn the kingdom of Israel from him and had given it to one better than he. He insisted that the Hope of Israel, the eternal God, would not lie, nor repent of passing this solemn sentence. He was not as a mere man, disposed to change His mind. Samuel would allow Saul no false impression as to this matter.
Saul repeats his confession, “I have sinned,” and evidently realizes it as true that he will eventually lose his kingdom to another; yet for the present he urges Samuel, “honor me NOW before the elders of my people, and turn again with me that I may worship the Lord.” Many since Saul have little taken to heart God’s word as to the future because they are more concerned for present honor! Saul would hold on to his public position just as long as the Lord would allow him to. This of course is not true repentance as in the eyes of God. Honest repentance would have made him willing to step down immediately: had he done so he might have saved himself the pain of a sad public history.
Yet Samuel turned again after Saul, and Saul (at least outwardly) worshiped the Lord. No doubt Samuel was right in doing this, for Saul must be taught through painful experience and failure that he was far from qualified for the responsibilities of reigning over Israel. Just as Adam was allowed to live for years after God had passed the sentence of death, so, though Saul had forfeited his right to reign, the sentence was not carried out until later.
But if Saul had failed as regards Agag, Samuel would not. He is not influenced by the servile appearance of this king of Amalek, nor by his words, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” He firmly tells him, “As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.” Then Samuel, old man though he was, “hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.” Solemn work for a man of God! But we too must allow no compromise with sin in the flesh.
Samuel returned to Ramah, and did not come to see Saul again, though Saul saw Samuel once more (ch.19:21-24). The last phrase, “the Lord repented Him that He had made Saul king over Israel,” does not infer that God had made a mistake in doing so, but rather His regret because of Saul’s proving himself unfit for this position. A similar expression is in Gen 6:6 : “it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth.” Certainly there was nothing morally wrong with what God had done, but His regret was because He felt deeply the sorrow of the consequences in both cases. Thank God that He has wisdom, power and grace to bring in afterwards what will far transcend the tragic failure of man and provide infinitely greater blessing in exchange!
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee [to be] king over his people, over Israel: now therefore {a} hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
(a) Because he has preferred you to this honour, you are bound to obey him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
5. Yahweh’s final rejection of Saul ch. 15
"In the short pericope 1Sa 13:7-15 a obedience was the stone on which Saul stumbled; here it is the rock that crushes him." [Note: Ibid., p. 142.]
Chapter 15 records one of the battles Saul fought with the Amalekites, Israel’s enemy to the south (cf. 1Sa 14:48). The Amalekites were descendants of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1Ch 1:36) and, therefore, linked with the Edomites. They were nomads who lived principally in southern Canaan and the Sinai Peninsula. This battle evidently happened about 25 years after Saul began reigning, which was 23 years after God rejected Saul’s dynasty following Saul’s disobedience at Gilgal (1Sa 13:1-15). [Note: Wood, Israel’s United . . ., p. 138.] Thus Saul apparently served as king about 23 years between God’s rejection of his dynasty (ch. 13) and God’s rejection of him personally (ch. 15).
Most scholars are sure Saul attacked the Amalekites who lived in the southern Judah Negev, though some feel he attacked an enclave of them in western Samaria. [Note: E.g., Diane Edelmann, "Saul’s Battle Against Amaleq (1 Samuel 15)," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):74-81.] Saul did not destroy all the Amalekites at this time (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1; 2Sa 8:12). King Hezekiah completely annihilated them years later (1Ch 4:43).
God directed Saul through Samuel (1Sa 14:1-3). Consequently for Saul to disobey what Samuel said was tantamount to disobeying God. Samuel reminded Saul that Yahweh was the Lord of hosts (1Sa 14:2), his commander-in-chief. Saul’s mission was to annihilate the Amalekites plus their animals completely (1Sa 14:3; cf. Deu 7:2-6; Deu 12:2-3; Deu 20:16-18). God had commanded Joshua to do the same to Jericho; every breathing thing was to die (Jos 6:17-21; cf. Deu 20:16-18). Saul was now to put the Amalekites under the ban (Heb. herem). This practice was not unique to Israel; the Moabites and presumably other ancient Near Eastern nations also put cities and groups of people under the ban. [Note: See Gordon, pp. 143, 147-48.] God had plainly commanded this destruction of the Amalekites through Moses (Exo 17:16; Deu 25:17-19; cf. Num 24:20; Gen 12:3). Thus there was no question what the will of God involved. The phrase "utterly destroy" (Heb. heherim) occurs seven times in this account (1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 14:8-9 [twice], 15, 18, 20), showing that God’s will was clear and that Saul’s disobedience was not an oversight.
"The agent of divine judgment can be impersonal (e.g., the Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) or personal (as here), and in his sovereign purpose God often permits entire families or nations to be destroyed if their corporate representatives are willfully and incorrigibly wicked (cf. Jos 7:1; Jos 7:10-13; Jos 7:24-26)." [Note: Youngblood, p. 673. On the problem of God’s goodness and His severe treatment of sinners, and even their animals, in the Old Testament, see Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament; and John W. Wenham, The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?]
The Amalekites (1Sa 14:6) were descendants of Esau (Gen 36:12), whereas the Kenites traced their ancestry from Midian, one of Abraham’s sons by Keturah (Gen 25:2). The Kenites had been friendly to Israel (Exo 18:9-10; Exo 18:19; Num 10:29-32), whereas the Amalekites had not. There may have been a treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites. [Note: See F. Charles Fensham, "Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?" Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 175 (October 1964):51-54.]
Saul’s criterion for what he put to death was not part of God’s command but his own judgment (1Sa 14:9). Again, Saul’s defective view of his role under Yahweh’s sovereign rule is obvious. God had earlier revealed through Balaam that Israel’s king "shall be higher than Agag" (Num 24:7). As Achan had done, Saul misused some of what God had devoted to another purpose. Clearly Saul set his will against the orders of his Commander; he was "not willing" to destroy everything that breathed (1Sa 14:9). His obedience was selective and partial.
The phrase "the word of the Lord came to" occurs only three times in 1 and 2 Samuel (1Sa 14:10; cf. 2Sa 7:4; 2Sa 24:11). In all cases it refers to an important message of judgment that God sent Israel’s king through a prophet. God regretted that He had made Saul king (1Sa 14:11) because of Saul’s actions, not because God felt He had made a mistake in calling Saul. Saul’s failure to follow God faithfully also broke Samuel’s heart. The disobedience of leaders always grieves the hearts of God’s faithful servants. Samuel foresaw the consequences of Saul’s actions. The village of Carmel (lit. vineyard) stood about 8 miles south and a little east of Hebron. The monument Saul set up honored himself, not God who gave him the victory. When Moses defeated the Amalekites, he built an altar (Exo 17:15-16); but when Saul defeated them, he erected a stele, a monument commemorating a victory (cf. 2Sa 18:18).
Consistent with his view of his own behavior, Saul claimed to have obeyed God (1Sa 14:13). Nevertheless he had only been partially obedient. God regards incomplete obedience as disobedience (1Sa 14:19). Rather than confessing his sin, Saul sought to justify his disobedience (1Sa 14:15; cf. Gen 3:12; Exo 32:22-23). He believed it was for a worthy purpose, and he failed to take responsibility for his actions and blamed the people instead (1Sa 14:15).
"Samuel now realized that Saul was not a leader, but the tool and slave of the people." [Note: Young, p. 285.]
Samuel had earlier delivered a message of doom to Eli in the morning (1Sa 3:15-18). Now he delivered one to Saul on another morning (1Sa 14:16).
"There is in all of us an inclination to resent being told what to do; but those in positions of authority and power are all the more reluctant to acknowledge anyone else’s superior authority." [Note: David Payne, pp. 77-78.]
Since Saul returned to Gilgal to offer sacrifices, it is possible that this was the site of the tabernacle (1Sa 14:12; 1Sa 14:15; cf. 1Sa 10:8; 1Sa 13:8-10). If this was the Gilgal in the Jordan Valley, it was where the Israelites had pitched the tabernacle first in Canaan after they crossed the Jordan River in Joshua’s day (Jos 4:19). On the other hand, the Israelites offered sacrifices at places other than the tabernacle after they entered the Promised Land. We cannot say for sure that Saul went to Gilgal because the tabernacle was there.
Saul had formerly been genuinely humble. He had realistically evaluated himself before his anointing (1Sa 14:17; cf. 1Sa 9:21). Yet when he became king he viewed himself as the ultimate authority in Israel, a view common among ancient Near Eastern monarchs. This attitude led him to disobey the Law of God. God had sent Saul on a mission (1Sa 14:18; cf. Mat 28:19-20), which involved the total extermination of the Amalekites. The Hebrew word translated "sinners" means habitually wicked people (cf. Psa 1:1; Psa 1:5), like the Canaanites.
"That Haman the ’Agagite’ (Est 3:1; Est 3:10; Est 8:3; Est 8:5; Est 9:24) was an Amalekite is taken for granted by Josephus, who states that Haman’s determination to destroy all the Jews in Persia was in retaliation for Israel’s previous destruction of all his ancestors (Antiq. XI, 211 [vi.5])." [Note: Youngblood, p. 674.]
However, there is good reason to believe that Agag was the name of an area in Media that had become part of the Persian Empire. [Note: See Archer, p. 421.] If Josephus was correct, Saul’s total obedience to God would have precluded Haman’s attempt to annihilate the Jews in Esther’s day.
Saul persisted in calling partial obedience total obedience (1Sa 14:20). He again placed responsibility for sparing some of the spoils taken in the battle on the people (1Sa 14:21), but as king he was responsible for the people’s actions. Saul sometimes took too much responsibility on himself and at other times too little. He tried to justify his actions by claiming that he did what he had done to honor God. He betrayed his lack of allegiance by referring to Yahweh as "your" God, not "our" God or "my" God, twice (cf. 1Sa 14:30).
Samuel spoke what the writer recorded in 1Sa 14:22-23 in poetic form, indicating to all that God had inspired what he was saying. God frequently communicated oracles through the prophets in such exalted speech (cf. Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33; et al.). These classic verses prioritize total obedience and worship ritual for all time. God desires reality above ritual. Sacrificing things to God is good, but obedience is "better" because it involves sacrificing ourselves to Him. The spared animals Saul offered to God were voluntary sacrifices.
"The issue here is not a question of either/or but of both/and. Practically speaking, this means that sacrifice must be offered to the Lord on his terms, not ours." [Note: Youngblood, p. 677.]
What is the difference between obedience and sacrifice? Sacrifice is one aspect of obedience, but obedience involves more than just sacrifice. We should never think that we can compensate for our lack of obedience to some of God’s commands by making other sacrifices for Him.
Suppose one Saturday morning a father asks his teenage son to mow the lawn for him since he has to work that Saturday and cannot do it himself. Company is coming and he wants it to look good. The son decides that his dad’s car needs washing more than the grass needs cutting. Besides, the boy plans to use the car on a date that night. When the father comes home, he finds that his son has not cut the grass. "I decided to wash your car instead," the boy explains. "Aren’t you pleased with me?" His father replies, "I appreciate your washing the car, but that’s not what I asked you to do. I would have preferred that you mow the lawn, as I told you."
The failure of Israel’s king to follow his Commander-in-Chief’s orders was much more serious than the son’s disobedience in the illustration above. Departure from God’s will (rebellion) presumes to control the future course of events, as divination does (1Sa 14:23). Failure to carry out God’s will (insubordination) is wicked (iniquity) and puts the insubordinate person in God’s place. This is a form of idolatry. God would now begin to terminate Saul’s rule as Israel’s king (1Sa 14:23; cf. Exo 34:7). Previously God had told him that his kingdom (dynasty) would not endure (1Sa 13:14).
"Saul’s loss of kingship and kingdom are irrevocable; the rest of 1 Samuel details how in fact he does lose it all." [Note: Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, p. 98.]
Saul’s confession was superficial. The Hebrew word translated "transgressed" (abarti) means "overlooked." Saul only admitted that he had overlooked some small and relatively unimportant part of what God had commanded (1Sa 14:24). What God called rebellion Saul called an oversight. Saul’s greater sin was putting himself in God’s place. He was guilty of a kind of treason, namely, trying to usurp the ultimate authority in Israel. Samuel refused to accompany Saul because Saul had refused to accompany God (1Sa 14:26).
"Most of us like to think that however serious our disobedience, once we repent of that sin, we are forgiven and experience no real loss. The Scripture teaches that genuine repentance always meets forgiveness, but it does not teach that there are no losses. Actually, every reflective Christian knows of permanent losses that are the result of our failure to live up to God’s ideals for our lives." [Note: Chafin, p. 130.]
When Saul seized Samuel’s robe, he was making an earnest appeal. The phrase "to grasp the hem" was a common idiomatic expression in Semitic languages that pictured a gesture of supplication. [Note: See Edward L. Greenstein, "’To Grasp the Hem’ in Ugaritic Literature," Vetus Testamentum 32:2 (April 1982):217, and Ronald A. Brauner, "’To Grasp the Hem’ and 1 Samuel 15:27," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6 (1974):135-38.] Later, David would cut off the hem of Saul’s robe in a cave while the king slept (1Sa 24:4). Since the hem of a garment identified the social status of the person who wore it, [Note: See Jacob Milgrom, "Of Hems and Tassels," Biblical Archaeology Review 9:3 (May-June 1983):61-65.] David was symbolically picturing the transfer of royal authority from Saul to himself when he did this. When Saul tore Samuel’s hem, he symbolically, though perhaps unintentionally, seized the prophet’s authority inappropriately. Samuel interpreted his action as symbolizing the wrenching of the kingdom from Saul (cf. 1Ki 11:29-33).
1Sa 14:29 poses a problem in the light of other passages that say God changed His mind (e.g., Exo 32:14; Num 14:12; Num 14:20; 1Ch 25:15). What did Samuel mean? I believe he meant that God is not fickle. [Note: See Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 250.] God does sometimes relent (change His mind) in response to the prayers of His people or when they repent (cf. Jer 18:7-10; 1Jn 1:9). [Note: For a fuller discussion of this subject, see Thomas L. Constable, "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change," in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 105-6; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "Does God ’Change His Mind’?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99; and idem, "Does God Deceive?" Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):11-28.] However, when He determines to do something, He follows through (cf. Jer 14:11-12). God is initially open to changing His mind about how He will deal with people, but He does not remain open forever. He is patient with people, but His patience has its limit (2Pe 3:9-10). God allows people time to make their choices, but then He holds them responsible for those choices. The language "changed His mind" or "does not change His mind," when applied to God, is anthropomorphic (describing God in human terms). Obviously God does not have a mind or brain as humans do, since He is a spirit being. Anthropomorphic (human form) and anthropopathic (human feeling) expressions indicate that God is like human beings in these comparisons.
"When God issues a decree that is plainly intended as irrevocable, as in the rejection of Saul, then, says our text, there is no possibility of that decree being rescinded (cf. Num 23:19)." [Note: Gordon, p. 146.]
Saul had established a long record of rebellious behavior. God knew that Saul’s confession was not genuine and his repentance was not real. Saul may have thought that he could "con" God, but He could not. He behaved toward God as a manipulative child deals with his or her parents. Rather than having a heart to please God, as David did, Saul only obeyed God when he felt that it was to his advantage to do so. He wanted to maintain control and to receive the glory. Samuel reminded the king that Yahweh was the "Glory of Israel." Saul may have been bowing down in repentance in Samuel’s presence, though the text does not say that, but he was standing up inside. It was that unbending resistance to God’s complete will that made Saul unusable as Israel’s king.
"Saul, as this chapter in particular would have us understand, was a man in contention with Yahweh in a way that David, for all his lurid sins, never was." [Note: Ibid., p. 142.]
Saul’s lack of submission was an even more serious sin than David’s sins of murder and adultery. God did not remove the kingship from David for his sins, but He did from Saul.
"To be king in Israel was . . . quite a different matter from being king in the countries round about. Saul did not understand this distinction, and resented Samuel’s ’interference,’ whereas David appreciated the point that the Lord his God was the focus of authority, and therefore he was willing to submit to the word of his prophet even though, in the eyes of the watching world, it must have seemed that David’s own authority would thereby be weakened. Here lay the crucial distinction between Saul and David. The man after God’s own heart submitted to God’s word, obeyed his prophets, and found acceptance and forgiveness, despite his many glaring faults and failures. Saul obstinately clung to his rights as king, but lost his throne." [Note: Baldwin, p. 35.]
Perhaps Samuel consented to honor Saul by worshipping with him (1Sa 14:30-31) because Saul was still the king. It was good that Saul wanted to honor Yahweh in the eyes of the people by worshipping Him. Perhaps Saul’s sincere though shallow contrition moved Samuel to be more cooperative and gracious (cf. 1Sa 14:26). Some of the commentators believed Samuel did not sin in returning with Saul. [Note: E.g., Peter N. Greenhow, "Did Samuel Sin?" Grace Journal 11:2 (1970):34-40.] Note Saul’s continuing obsession with external appearances.
Samuel proceeded to obey God, as Saul should have, by slaying Agag (1Sa 14:32-33). The departure of Samuel and Saul to their respective hometowns pictures them going their separate ways. They had little in common since their allegiance to Yahweh was quite different, so they saw nothing more of each other (1Sa 14:35). [Note: See David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story, p. 147.] Saul’s attitude toward Yahweh and its resultant judgment grieved the prophet who felt, as God, sorrow over the king’s fate (1Sa 15:35; 1Sa 16:1). God has feelings about our responses to Him. He is not a machine but a Person. God regretted that He had made Saul king because of Saul’s decisions, not because God thought He had made a mistake by choosing Saul. This is an anthropopathism. God felt about Saul the way we feel when someone whom we have favored greatly disappoints us greatly. Note that God regretted that He had made Saul king, not that He had made Saul one of His children. Saul did not lose his salvation because he failed to obey God completely, but he did lose his opportunity to serve God by ruling over God’s people (cf. Pro 25:19; 1Co 9:27). [Note: See Terence E. Fretheim, "Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul’s Kingship," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47:4 (October 1985):597.]
Chapters 12-15 present the negative side of Saul’s character, whereas chapters 8-11 emphasize Saul’s positive traits. The writer structured these sections parallel to each other to make the contrast striking.
The motif of fertility continues as the major theological emphasis in this section of 1 Samuel (chs. 7-15). Samuel, the innocent and obedient servant of the Lord, won the privilege of communicating God’s Word by his faithful commitment to God. Saul, the ideal Israelite who personified the hopes and ambitions of Israel, lost his privilege of leading God’s people because he was unfaithful to God.
"Saul was an impetuous person who wanted to take matters into his own hands rather than trusting the Lord. He had the opposite of the proper covenant mentality. His sin was so serious that there could be no atonement for it. This is similar to Eli’s sons, for whose sins no atonement was available. Their sin resulted in a change of order, from Eli to Samuel. In Saul’s case the change in order was from Saul to David." [Note: Martin, p. 35.]
The writer recorded four more conflicts and reversals of fortune in chapters 7-15: the Philistines and Samuel (1Sa 7:2-17), the Ammonites and Saul (chs. 8-11), Saul and Jonathan (1Sa 12:1 to 1Sa 14:46), and Saul and Samuel (1Sa 14:47 to 1Sa 15:35). In the first two sections, God’s two anointed servants, Samuel and Saul, defeated Israel’s external enemies by depending on God. They both gave God the credit for their victories (1Sa 7:12; 1Sa 11:13-15). In the third and fourth sections, because Saul refused to obey God and to acknowledge His victory, Saul replaced the external enemies of Israel as the object of God and Samuel’s anger. Jonathan became Israel’s deliverer when his father failed. The son saw the spiritual significance of events to which the father was blind.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XXI.
THE FINAL REJECTION OF SAUL
1Sa 15:1-35.
HERE we find the second portion of God’s indictment against Saul, and the reason for his final rejection from the office to which he had been raised. There is no real ground for the assertion of some critics that in this book we have two accounts of Saul’s rejection, contradictory one of the other, because a different ground is asserted for it in the one case from that assigned in the other. The first rejection (1Sa 13:13-14) was the rejection of his house as the permanent dynasty of Israel, but it did not imply either that Saul was to cease to reign, or that God was to withdraw all countenance and co-operation with him as king. The rejection we read of in the present chapter goes further than the first. It does not indeed imply that Saul would cease to reign, but it does imply that God would no longer countenance him as king, would no longer make him his instrument of deliverance and blessing to Israel, but would leave him to the miserable feeling that he was reigning without authority. More than that, as we know from the sequel, it implied that God was about to bring his successor forward, and thereby exhibit both to him and to the nation the evidence of his degradation and rejection. It is likely that the transactions of this chapter occurred when Saul’s reign was far advanced. If he had not been guilty of fresh disregard of God’s will, though David would still have been his successor, he would have been spared the shame and misery of going out and in before his people like one who bore the mark of Cain, the visible expression of the Divine displeasure.
Throughout the whole of this chapter, God appears in that more stern and rigorous aspect of His character which is not agreeable to the natural heart of man. Judgment, we are told, is His strange work; it is not what He delights in; but it is a work which He cannot fail to perform when the necessity for it arises. There is a gospel which is often preached in our day that divests God wholly of the rigid, judicial character; it clothes Him with no attributes but those of kindness and love; it presents Him in a countenance ever smiling, never stern. It maintains that the great work of Christ in the world was to reveal this paternal aspect of God’s character, to convince men of His fatherly feelings towards them, and to divest their minds of all those conceptions of indignation and wrath with which our minds are apt to clothe Him, and which the theologies of men are so ready to foster. But this is a gospel that says. Peace! peace! when there is no peace. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does indeed reveal, and reveal very beautifully, the paternal character of God; but it reveals at the same time that judicial character which insists on the execution of His law. That God will execute wrath on the impenitent and unbelieving is just as much a feature of the Gospel as that He will bestow all the blessings of salvation and eternal life on them that believe. What the Gospel reveals respecting the sterner, the judicial, aspect of God’s character is, that there is no bitterness in His anger against sinners; there is nothing in God’s breast of that irritation and impatience which men are so apt to show when their fellow-men have offended them; God’s anger is just. The calm, settled opposition of His nature to sin is the feeling that dictates the sentence “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” The Gospel is indeed a glorious manifestation of the love and grace of God for sinners, but it is not an indiscriminate assurance of grace for all sinners; it is an offer of grace to all who believe on God’s Son, but it is an essential article of the Gospel that without faith in Christ the saving love and grace of God cannot be known. Instead of reducing the character of God to mere good-nature, the Gospel brings His righteousness more prominently forward than ever; instead of smoothing the doom of the impenitent, it deepens their guilt, and it magnifies their condemnation. Yes, my friends, and it is most whole- some for us all to look at times steadily in the face this solemn attribute of God, as the Avenger of the impenitent It shows us that sin is not a thing to be trifled with. It shows us that God’s will is not a thing to be despised. There are just two alternatives for thee, O sinner, who art not making God’s will the rule of thy life. Repent, believe, and be forgiven; continue to sin, and be lost forever.
The transaction in connection with which Saul was guilty of a fresh disregard of God’s will was an expedition which was appointed for him against the Amalekites. This people had been guilty of some very atrocious treatment of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai, the details of which are not given. Nations having a corporate life, when they continue to manifest the spirit of preceding generations, are held responsible for their actions, and liable to the penalty. Saul was sent to inflict on Amalekite retribution that had been due so long for his perfidious treatment of Israel on the way to Canaan. In the narrative, various places are mentioned as being in the Amalekite territory, but their exact sites are not known; and indeed this matters little, all that it is important to know being that the Amalekites were mainly a nomadic people, occupying the fringe between Canaan and the desert on the south border of Palestine, and doubtless subsisting to a large extent on the prey secured by them when they made forays into the territories of Israel. Saul gathered a great army to compass the destruction of this bitter and hostile people.
In reading of the instructions he received to exterminate them, to ”slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass,” we shudder to think of the fearful massacre which this involved. It was an order similar to that which the Israelites received to exterminate the inhabitants of Canaan, or that to destroy the Midianites, during the lifetime of Moses. Though it seems very horrible to us, in whose eyes human life has become very sacred, it probably excited little feeling of the kind in the breasts of the Israelites, accustomed as they were, and as all Eastern nations were, to think very little of human life, and to witness wholesale slaughter with little emotion. But there is one thing in the order that we must not overlook, because it gave a complexion to the transaction quite different from that of ordinary massacres. That circumstance was, that the prey was to be destroyed as well as the people In the case of an ordinary massacre, the conquering people abandon themselves to the license of their passions, and hasten to enrich themselves by appropriating everything of value on which they can lay their hands”. In the case of the Israelites, there was to be nothing of the kind. They were to destroy the prey just as thoroughly as they were to destroy the people. They were to enrich themselves in nothing. Now, this was a most important modification of the current practice in such things. But for this restriction, the extermination of the Amalekites would have been a wild carnival of selfish passion. The restriction appointed to Saul, like that which Joshua had imposed at Jericho, bound the people to the most rigid self-restraint, under circumstances when self-restraint was extremely difficult. The extermination was to be carried into effect with all the solemnity of a judicial execution, and the soldiers were to have no benefit from it whatever, any more than the jailer or the hangman can have benefit from the execution of some wretched murderer.
Now, let it be observed that it was in entirely disregarding this restriction that a chief part of Saul’s disobedience lay. ”Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.” The sparing of King Agag seems to have been a piece of vanity with Saul, for a conqueror returning home with a royal prisoner was greatly thought of in those Eastern lands. But the sparing of the prey was a matter of pure greed. Observe how the character of the transaction was wholly changed by this circumstance. Instead of wearing the aspect of a solemn retribution on a sinful nation, on a people laden with iniquity, all the more impressive because the ministers of God’s vengeance abstained from appropriating a vestige of the property, but consigned the whole, like a plague-stricken mass, too polluted to be touched, to the furnace of destruction – instead of this, it just appeared like an ordinary unprincipled foray, in which the victorious party slew the other, mainly to get them out of the way and enable them without opposition to appropriate their goods. It was this consideration that made the offence of Saul so serious, that made his breach of the Divine order so guilty. Had he no knowledge of the history of his people? Did he not remember what had happened at Jericho in the days of Joshua, when Achan stole the wedge of gold and the Babylonian garment, and, in spite of the fact that the rest of the people had behaved well and that God’s purpose in the main was amply carried out, Achan and all his family were judicially stoned to death? How could Saul expect that such a flagrant violation of the Divine command in the case of the Amalekites, perpetrated not on the sly by a single individual, but openly by the king and all the people, could escape the retribution of God?
Such then was Saul’s conduct in the affair of Amalek. The next incident in the narrative is the communication that took place regarding it between the Lord and Samuel. Speaking after the manner of men, God said. It repented Him that He had set up Saul to be king. That these words are not to be explained in a strictly literal sense is evident from what is said in 1Sa 15:29 : “The strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man that He should repent.” The intimation to Samuel was equivalent to this: that God was now done with Saul. He had been weighed in the balances and found wanting. He had had his time of probation, and he had failed. He was joined to his idols, and must now be let alone. This last and very flagrant act of disobedience settled the matter. “My Spirit shall not always strive with man.”
How did Samuel receive the announcement? “It grieved Samuel, and he cried to the Lord all night.” It is the same word as is translated in Jonah, “It displeased Jonah.” But there is nothing to show that Samuel was displeased with God. The whole transaction was disappointing, worrying, heart-breaking. Doubtless he had a certain liking for Saul. He admired his splendid figure and many fine kingly qualities. It was a terrible struggle to give him up. The Divine announcement threw his mind into a tumult. All night he cried unto the Lord. Doubtless his cry was somewhat similar to our Lord’s cry in Gethsemane, “If it be possible, let this cup pass.” If it be possible, recover Saul. And observe, Samuel had good cause to raise this cry on account of the man who would naturally have been Saul’s successor. He must have had great complacency in Jonathan. If Saul was to be set aside, why should not Jonathan have the crown? On whose head would it sit more gracefully? In whose hand would the sceptre be held more suitably? But even this plea would not avail. It was God’s purpose to mark the offence of Saul with a deeper stigma, and attach to it in the mind of the nation a more conspicuous brand, by cutting off his whole family and transferring the crown to a quite different line. It took the whole night to reconcile Samuel to the Divine sentence. How very deeply and tenderly must this man’s heart have been moved by regard for Saul and for the people! In the morning, his soul seems to have returned to its quiet rest. His mood seems now to have been, ”Not my will but Thine be done!”
Next comes the meeting of Saul and Samuel. Samuel seems to have expected to meet Saul at Carmel – the Carmel of Nabal (1Sa 15:2) – but, perhaps on purpose to avoid him, Saul hastened to Gilgal. And when they met there, Saul, with no little audacity, claimed to have performed the commandment of the Lord. That this plea was not advanced in simple ignorance, as some have thought, is plain enough from Samuel’s reception of it and his rebuke. “What meaneth this bleating of sheep in mine ears and the lowing of the oxen in my ears?” Facts are stubborn things, and they make quick work of sophistry. Oh, says Saul, these are brought as a sacrifice to the Lord thy God; they are an extra proof of my loyalty to Him. Saul, Saul, is it not enough that thou didst allow the selfish greed whether of thyself or of thy people to overbear the Divine command? Must thou add the sin of hypocrisy, and pretend that it was a pious act? And dost thou imagine that in so doing thou canst impose either on Samuel, or on God? O sinners, you do miscalculate fearfully when you give to God’s servants such false explanations of your sins! How long, think you, will the flimsy material hold out? In the case of Saul, it did not even enable him to turn the corner. It brought out a fact which he must have trembled to hear: that Samuel had had a communication about him from God the very night before, and that God had spoken very plainly about him, And what had God said? God had proceeded on the fact that Saul had disobeyed his voice, and had flown upon the spoil to preserve what God had commanded him to destroy. “Nay,” says Saul, “it was not I that did that, but the people, and they did it to sacrifice to the Lord thy God in Gilgal.” The excuse hardly needed to be exposed. Why did you let the people do so? Why did you not fulfill God’s command as faithfully as Joshua did at Jericho? Why did you allow yourself, or the people either, to tamper with the clear orders given you by your King and theirs? ”Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Moral conduct is more than ceremonial form. ”Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He also hath rejected thee from being king.”
This terrible word pierces Saul to the quick. He is thoroughly alarmed. He makes acknowledgment of his sin in so far as he had feared the people and obeyed their words. He entreats Samuel to forgive him and turn again with him that he may worship God. He shows no evidence of true, heartfelt repentance. And Samuel refuses to return with him, and refuses to identify himself with one whom God hath rejected from being king. But Saul is deeply in earnest. He tries to detain Samuel by force. He takes hold of his mantle, and holds it so firmly that it rends. It is a symbol, says Samuel, of the rending of the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, to be given by God to a neighbour of thine that is better than thou. And this is God’s irreversible sentence. Your day of grace is expired, and the Divine sentence is beyond recall. One more appeal does Saul make to Samuel. Again he owns his sin, but the request he makes shows clearly that what he is most anxious about is that he should not appear dishonoured before the people. It is his own reputation that concerns him. “Honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people and before Israel and turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord thy God.” Samuel yields. The abject wretchedness of the man seems to have touched him. But it is not said that Samuel worshipped with him. Samuel would no doubt continue firm to his purpose not to identify himself with Saul as king, or give him any moral support in his attitude of disobedience. So far from that, Samuel openly superseded him in dealing with Agag; he went out of his way, and did an act which could not but appear a frightful one for a venerable prophet of the Lord. It is the voice of the real king that sounds in the command, “Bring ye hither to me Agag, the king of the Amalekites.” We seem to see the royal prisoner advancing cringingly before that imperial figure, in whose eye there is a look, and in whose face and figure there is a determination, that may well make him quail. ”Surely,” says Agag, imploringly, “the bitterness of death is past.” Spared by the king, I am not to fare worse from the prophet. Samuel knew him a merciless destroyer. ”As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. ”Cursed be he that doeth the work of God deceitfully, and cursed be he that withholdeth his sword from shedding of blood.” It is a scene of terror. The swift retribution executed on the one king was but the sign of the slower retribution pronounced upon the other. In the one case the doom was rapid; in the other it was deferred; in both it was sure. And have we not here a sad picture of that retribution which is sure to come on the impenitent sinner, and in the procedure of Samuel a foreshadowing of Him who cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah, who will one day speak to His enemies in His wrath and vex them in His hot displeasure? Have we not here a foretaste of the opening of the sixth seal, when the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, shall say to the mountains and rocks. Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall he able to stand”?
And oh! how little in that day will those plausible excuses avail with which men try to cover their sins to themselves, and it may be to others. How will the hail sweep away the refuges of lies! How will the real character of men’s hearts, the true tenor of their lives, in respect they have set aside God’s will and set up their own, be revealed in characters that cannot be mistaken! The question to be determined by your lite was, whether God or you was King. Which did you obey, God’s will or your own? Did you set aside God’s will? Then you are certainly a rebel; and never having repented, never having been washed, or sanctified, or justified, your portion is with the rebels; the Father’s house is not for you!
And now the breach between Samuel and Saul is final. ”Samuel came no more to visit Saul until the day of his death; nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.”
Saul is cut off now from his best means of grace – he is virtually an excommunicated man. Was it hard? Do our sympathies in any degree go with him? To our compassion he is entitled in the highest degree, but to nothing more. Saul’s worst qualities had now become petrified. His willfulness, his selfishness, his passionateness, his jealousy, had now got complete control, nor could their current be turned aside. The threat of losing his kingdom – perhaps the most terrible threat such a man could have felt – had failed to turn him from his wayward course. He was like the man in the iron cage in the ”Pilgrim’s Progress,” who gave his history: “I left off to watch and be sober; I laid the reins upon the neck of my lusts; I sinned against the light of the word and the goodness of God; I have grieved the Spirit and He is gone; I tempted the devil, and he is come to me; I have provoked God to anger and He has left me; I have so hardened my heart that I cannot repent.”
It is a terrible lesson that comes to us from the career of Saul. If our natural lusts are not under the restraint of a higher power; if by that power we are not trained to watch, and check, and overpower them; if we allow them to burst all restraint and lord it over us as they will, – then will they grow into so many tyrants, who will rule us with rods of iron; laugh at the feeble remonstrances of our conscience; scoff at every messenger of God; vex His Holy Spirit, and hurl us at last to everlasting woe!