Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 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.
Samuel came no more … – In the sense of visiting or conversing on public affairs.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Sa 15:35
Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death.
Samuels withdrawal from Saul
Very few bad persons are without some redeeming quality, as it is called; and redeeming qualities are usually precisely of that kind by which we are most fascinated. The redeeming qualities of a wicked man are, however, the very things which should cause us most to fear for these with whom he comes in contact.
1. Few–very few, avoid falling into the error of mistaking what are symptoms of possible good in the future for tokens of real good at the present time, and from at least occasionally thinking that their deliberately formed opinion of the entire character was after all incorrect, and that the persons in whom these good qualities are so clearly observable cannot be wicked at all. These, of course, will think and speak of the redeeming qualities, not as redeeming qualities, but as the main features of the character, and try to persuade themselves that it is for the sake of these they continue intimacies which their consciences tell them require in some way to be defended.
2. Besides this proneness to self-deceit, which in greater or less force lurks in the best of us, there are two other causes which expose us to the danger of being injured by the redeeming qualities of godless men. One is the fact that there are undoubtedly blemishes in the characters of very good men.
3. The other source of danger is this. The very best of men are known to entertain an affection for bad men. From this it is argued that the men are not bad. Samuel had an affection for Saul. Saul had many redeeming qualities–qualities calculated to make him exceedingly popular. Nor was this all. He had a good deal about him to be liked, and Samuel did like him. A good man, then, may have an affection for a bad man, without being at all mistaken as to his character; nay, even after he had been, as in the case before us, the very persons who had himself pronounced the Divine condemnation. We must not, then, be led astray as to the real characters of those whom we should otherwise feel bound to regard as dangerous by the mere fact that they have awakened an affection in those whom we justly reverence. Had we known no more than that there was a King of Israel named Saul, and that the holy Samuel mourned exceeding for him on his losing the kingdom, we should, I think, have taken for granted that Saul was a good man, and yet you see we should have been wrong.
4. This discontinuance of personal intercourse with Saul shows us also the limits of a good mans companionship with a bad man. So long as there is any reasonable hope of his redeeming qualities becoming so developed as to constitute the main features, instead of the exceptional points of his character–so long as the influence imperceptibly exercised by early companionship seems likely to be instrumental in bringing about this change, just so long familiar intercourse with one whose grave faults we perceive may be continued without breach of duty towards God: but so soon as that time has gone by–so soon as these hopes seem unreasonable, then, although the regard still linger, the familiar acquaintance must be abandoned. Every case will, of course, have its peculiarities calling for especial consideration. But still there are certain classes of cases in which we may reasonably suppose that our associating with bad men will be unlikely to benefit them, in which the probabilities are so much against it that we had better not make the attempt, in which we had better not so much look to the possibility of our improving another as to that of his injuring us, in which the foremost thought in our minds should be, Evil communications corrupt good manners. Generally speaking, a good and a bad man cannot be much together without either being, however little or imperceptibly, changed by the other. Nor should it be forgotten that the companionship of a good man may be a positive injury to a bad man. He may deceive himself into the belief that his faults are not so great or dangerous as they really are, by the reflection that a good man and a sensible man would not like him if he were not in the main good also. Universally, on persons of about our own age and our own social position, who are obviously and ostentatiously opposing themselves to the precepts of the Gospel, our constant companionship is not likely to produce a good effect, except we be more than ordinarily religious and firm ourselves. Of all the instances you ever knew in which a woman entertained that wildest of notions that she would be able, after marriage, to reform the man over whom her influence was powerless before it–of all such instances–and there are numbers of them, how many are the successes you can recall? In how many do you know the result to have been intense and irremediable misery? No, there are those whose age or weight of character enables them without danger or misrepresentation to attempt the reformation of the wicked by being, to some extent, in their society. There are those who, perhaps, to both these qualifications have superadded the incentive of personal liking. Samuel was one of this sort, yet even to him the time came when ha, the old man, the good man, the minister of God, the man with a strong, affection towards Saul, felt it his duty to see him no more. (J. C. Coghlan, D. D.)
Separation of Samuel and Saul
It was a final parting: Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. They had now nothing in common. Their views and principles were widely dissimilar. They sought not the same ends, and they used very different means. Samuel so closely followed the will and way of God that he could not have fellowship with a throne of iniquity. A lifetimes godliness had made Samuel very jealous of the glory of God. He would not compromise his principles for the sake of keeping the favour of a king; and lest he should be understood as approving of Sauls procedure be absented himself altogether from his court. His absence would be a constant reproof of Sauls wilful esteems significant token that he deemed his policy ungodly. There are circumstances in the history of the believer, and even of the Church when separation from those with whom there have been union and fellowship becomes a duty. When any one finds that by his station or character he is likely to influence others, if he openly unites with those whose policy he disapproves, he is bound to separate. When any one discovers that he cannot, without countenancing the sin of others, continue in their fellowship he is bound to withdraw. When any one learns that his soul is imperilled by remaining with the ungodly, he must separate. The sacrifice of the dearest ties, the richest gains, and the most cherished associations, must be made, when duty to Christ demands it. Our Lord has laid down the law of a Christian in such circumstances in the plainest terms: If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me, etc. You may be associated in relationships that forbid your separation. The law of Christ does not demand the believer to break up his nuptial tie, or his filial ties; but it demands his faithful witness bearing at home. There must be no compromise with truth–with Christ–to please any friend. The world is not to be met half-way. We are not to conciliate by compromise. In the sixteenth century, separation from Rome became the duty of all enlightened souls who protested against the errors and crimes of Modern Babylon. Samuel went away in sorrow. He mourned for Saul. He did not part with him because his heart was steeled against him, or because of any unkindly feeling towards him personally, he yearned after the king with all the affection of a broken-hearted parent. Samuel mourned for Saul, for he pitied the people. Saul was a king according to their mind, and it was to be feared that they would approve of his infatuated policy, and thus turn away from God. Perhaps this had an influence upon his determination to separate from Saul, that all Israel might see that he was no more a party to their monarchs ways. When so good a man as Samuel retired from fellowship with Saul, they might perhaps reflect upon their own safety. But people are blind, and require long discipline to correct their sins and reform their ways. (R. Steel.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 35. And Samuel came no more to see Saul] But we read, 1Sa 19:22-24, that Saul went to see Samuel at Naioth, but this does not affect what is said here. From this time Samuel had no connection with Saul; he never more acknowledged him as king; he mourned and prayed for him, and continued to perform his prophetic functions at Ramah, and at Naioth, superintending the school of the prophets in that place.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
To see Saul, i.e. to visit him, either in token of respect or friendship; or to seek counsel from God for him, or to give counsel to him. Seeing is put for visiting here, and 2Ki 8:29. Otherwise he did see him afterwards, 1Sa 19:24. Though indeed it was not Samuel that came thither with design to see Saul, which is implied in the phrase here; but Saul went thither to see Samuel, and that accidentally.
Samuel mourned for Saul; partly for Sauls sake, whose sad condition he lamented; and partly for Israels sake, whose estate he feared might by this means be doubtful and dangerous.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death,…. Or “added not to see him” x; not that he saw him no more, he saw him afterwards, 1Sa 19:24, but it was accidentally, he did not go to see him, but Saul came to him; and Abarbinel supposes he might not see him then, but hid his face from him; and he observes that it is said,
until the day of his death; which intimates, he thinks, that he saw him after his death, when raised up by the witch of Endor; but that Samuel was then really raised, and was seen, wants proof. The meaning of the expression here is no more than this, that Samuel afterwards did not visit Saul as he used to do; he did not go to him, to give him his advice and counsel, as he wonted:
nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; because of his sin, his impenitence, and hypocrisy; and because of the loss of the kingdom to him, and to his posterity; and he might be concerned also about his eternal welfare; for he appears to have a natural affection for him, and was far from envying him as his rival, and rejoicing at his fall:
and the Lord repented that he made Saul king over Israel; nor was his mind altered, neither by the hypocritical confession of Saul, nor by the cordial prayers and heart of Samuel; see 1Sa 15:11.
x – “et non addidit ad videndum”, Montanus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(35) Came no more to see Saul . . .Once more the old friends met together in life (see 1Sa. 19:24), but the interview on this occasion was not of Samuels seeking; nor does it appear then that any communication passed between them. When next the seer and the king spoke together, the seer belonged to another and a different world. After this, Samuel came no more to him, bearing messages and commands, and giving him counsel and guidance from God. 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.Lange.
Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul.The old seer, who had known Saul from the days of his splendid youthful promise, had indeed good reason to mourn. He, no doubt, loved him much, and regarded him as his own adopted child. On Saul he had built up all his hopes for the future of the Israel he loved so well. There was besides so much that was great and noble in the character of that first Hebrew king: he was the bravest of the brave, a tried and skilful general, possessed too of many of those high gifts which belong to men like Saul and David, and which enable them to be the saviours and regenerators of their country. This first great king only lacked one thing: true faith in that God who loved Israel with a peculiar love. Saul through his chequered career never really leaned on the Arm of the Mighty One of Jacob. No doubt, too, Samuel already perceived in the brilliant but headstrong king the first beginning of that terrible malady which over-shadowed the meridian and clouded the latter years of Saulsigns of that dread visitant, insanity, were, no doubt, visible to Samuel when the old man began to mourn for Saul.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
35. Samuel came no more to see Saul At a later time, when in pursuit of David, Saul came before Samuel, (1Sa 19:24,) but we do not find that Samuel had any intercourse with him. So this interview at Gilgal was the last the prophet had with the disobedient king.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
REFLECTIONS
READER! pause with me over the perusal of this chapter, and mark, in the progress of Saul’s history, the certain truth of that awful sentence of the apostle, that evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. And while we look at the king of Israel under this melancholy character, let us not forget, to gather from the history of the Lord’s everlasting war with the Amalekites, that there can be no truce in this battle. Grace and corruption can no more join issue, than the iron and the clay in the image which the prophet saw. Put it down, Reader, in the maxims of your life, and see to it that your own experience corresponds to this most certain and unquestionable truth: the Spirit lusteth against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit. Lord, grant that neither the writer of this Commentary, nor the Reader of it, may be debtor to the flesh to live after the flesh: for if we live after the flesh we shall die: but, if we through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, we shall live.
Oh! most gracious God! give me to see, and awfully to feel the impression of it on my heart, in the history of the utter destruction of the Amalekites: that though the Lord long bears with the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; yet the day, the dreadful day, the tremendous day of judgment, surely cometh as a thief in the night, Oh! precious Jesus, be thou my refuge, my covert, my strong hold, in that day of wrath!
One sweet improvement more would I gather from the perusal of this chapter, before I take my leave of it, and in the sorrow the man of God felt for the Lord’s rejection of Saul, I would see how suited it is for the ministers of Jesus, to weep between the porch and the Altar, and lift up their cries and prayers over the sad ruin of our fallen nature? Did Samuel weep for Saul because the Lord had determined to take from him his earthly kingdom: and shall not my soul weep over the thousands of ungodly sinners, against whom the Lord hath sworn they shall not enter into his heavenly kingdom? Did the events of this short life, as they related to Saul, call forth the affection of the prophet: and shall not the grand concerns of eternity, as they attach themselves to sinners in the present hour, call forth my sympathy and prayer, that the Lord in the midst of judgment may remember mercy? Oh! most gracious Saviour! from whose distinguishing favor it is, that by the grace of God, I am what I am: teach me, Lord, to rejoice with trembling; and in the deepest sense of those awful judgments which I most righteously have deserved, but which thy mercy hath saved me from; give me a suitable frame of mind to come before thee. Like the prophet Ezekiel, I would fall to the dust, crying out; Ah! Lord God! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in this pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Ver. 35. And Samuel came no more, ] viz., To visit him, and assist him.
Samuel mourned for Saul.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
no more. Compare 1Sa 16:1, 1Sa 16:14; 1Sa 19:23.
Samuel mourned: i.e. as for one dead. We do not read that Saul mourned for himself.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Samuel: 1Sa 19:24
Samuel mourned: 1Sa 15:11, 1Sa 16:1, Psa 119:136, Psa 119:158, Jer 9:1, Jer 9:2, Rom 9:2, Rom 9:3, Phi 3:18
repented: 1Sa 15:11, Gen 6:6
Reciprocal: Gen 49:27 – a wolf 2Sa 6:23 – unto the day Jer 13:17 – my soul Jer 18:10 – then Rom 10:1 – my heart’s 2Co 12:21 – that I
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Sa 15:35. Samuel came no more to see Saul That is, to visit him, in token of respect or friendship; or, to seek counsel from God for him. Otherwise he did see him afterward, 1Sa 19:24. Though indeed it was not Samuel that came thither with a design to see Saul, but Saul went thither to see Samuel, and that accidentally. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul For his impenitence and rejection. He still had so much love to him, or to his country, as to lament the sad condition into which he was fallen.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
15:35 And Samuel came no more to {p} see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD {q} repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
(p) Though Saul came where Samuel was, 1Sa 19:22.
(q) As in 1Sa 15:11.