4<\/strong>. in Telaim<\/em> ] Nowhere else mentioned, unless it is the same as Telem<\/em> (Jos 15:24<\/span>), the position of which in the southern border of Judah suits the circumstances. The name means “lambs,” and was probably derived from the pastures in the neighbourhood.<\/p>\n ten thousand men of Judah<\/em> ] This implies that the 200,000 foot-soldiers were from the other tribes. See note on 1Sa 11:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n Telaim – <\/B>Probably the same as Telem Jos 15:24<\/span>, one of the uttermost cities of Judah, toward the coast of Edom. The name means lambs, and was probably so called from the numerous flocks.<\/P> Two hundred thousand … – <\/B>A wonderful contrast with the six hundred men who composed his whole army before 1Sa 13:15<\/span>, and a proof how completely for a time the Philistines had been driven back. The separate mention of the men of Judah shows how little union there was between Juduh and Ephraim even at this time; a circumstance which throws light upon the whole after history.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. Two hundred thousand – and ten thousand<\/B><\/I>] The Septuagint<\/I>, in the London Polyglot<\/I>, have FOUR HUNDRED thousand companies of<\/I> Israel<\/I>, and THIRTY thousand companies of Judah<\/I>. The Codex<\/I> Alexandrinus<\/I> has TEN thousand<\/I> of each. The Complutensian Polyglot<\/I> has TWO HUNDRED thousand companies of Israel<\/I>, and TEN thousand of<\/I> Judah<\/I>. And Josephus<\/I> has FOUR HUNDRED thousand of Israel<\/I>, and THIRTY thousand of Judah<\/I>. All the other versions<\/I> are the same with the Hebrew<\/I> text; and there is no difference in the MSS.<\/P> <\/p>\n Who are particularly noted here, as also Zec 11:8<\/span>, either as select persons of extraordinary strength and courage; or to commend that tribe, which, though the kingdom had been promised to their own tribe, yet were forward in serving and obeying a king of another, and that a far meaner tribe. <\/P> <\/p>\n 4. Saul gathered the peopletogether<\/B>The alacrity with which he entered on the necessarypreparations for the expedition gave a fair, but delusive promise offaithfulness in its execution. <\/P> Telaim<\/B>or Telem, amongthe uttermost cities of the tribe of Judah towards the coast of Edom(Jos 15:21<\/span>; Jos 15:24<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And Saul gathered the people together<\/strong>,…. Or “made them to hear” r, by the sound of a trumpet; or by sending heralds into all parts of the land to proclaim the above order of the Lord, and summon them to come to him, perhaps at Gilgal; so the Septuagint version, and Josephus s:<\/p>\n and numbered them in Telaim<\/strong>; thought to be the same with Telem, a place in the tribe of Judah, Jos 15:24<\/span>, the word signifies “lambs”; hence the Vulgate Latin version is,<\/p>\n “he numbered them as lambs;”<\/p>\n and the Jews t say, because it was forbid to number the children of Israel, which was the sin of David; therefore every man had a lamb given him, and so the lambs were numbered, by which it was known what was the number of the people; and the Targum says, this was done with the passover lambs, it being now the time of the passover; but the numbering here made was not of the people of the land in general, and so there was no occasion of such a precaution, only a numbering and mustering of the army when got together and rendezvoused in one place: the sum of which is here given,<\/p>\n two hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah<\/strong>; which last were reckoned separately, as distinct from the other tribes of Israel, to show their obedience to Saul, who was of another tribe, though the kingdom was promised to theirs; but R. Isaiah observes, that the reason why so few of the men of Judah came, in comparison of the other tribes, was, because they envied the government being in one of the tribe of Benjamin, when they thought it should have been in one of theirs; the number is greatly increased in the Septuagint version, which makes the whole to be 400,000, and 30,000 men of Judah; and so Josephus u.<\/p>\n r “audire fecit”, Vatablus, Drusius. s Antiqu. l. 6. c. 7. sect. 2. t T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 22. 2. Jarchi in loc. u Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 6. c. 7. sect. 2.)<\/p>\n Saul summoned the people to war, and mustered them (those who were summoned) at Telaim<\/em> (this was probably the same place as the Telem<\/em> mentioned in Jos 15:24<\/span>, and is to be looked for in the eastern portion of the Negeb). “ Two hundred thousand foot, and ten thousand of the men of Judah<\/em>:” this implies that the two hundred thousand were from the other tribes. These numbers are not too large; for a powerful Bedouin nation, such as the Amalekites were, could not possibly be successfully attacked with a small army, but only by raising the whole of the military force of Israel.<\/p>\n 1Sa 15:5<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> He then advanced as far as the city of the Amalekites, the situation of which is altogether unknown, and placed an ambush in the valley. does not come from , to fight, i.e., to quarrel, not to give battle, but was understood even by the early translators as a contracted form of , the Hiphil<\/em> of . And modern commentators have generally understood it in the same way; but Olshausen ( Hebr. Gramm<\/em>. p. 572) questions the correctness of the reading, and Thenius proposes to alter into . refers to a valley in the neighbourhood of the city of the Amalekites.<\/p>\n 1Sa 15:6-7<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Saul directed the Kenites to come out from among the Amalekites, that they might not perish with them ( , imp. Kal<\/em> of ), as they had shown affection to the Israelites on their journey out of Egypt (compare Num 10:29<\/span> with Jdg 1:16<\/span>). He then smote the Amalekites from Havilah in the direction towards Shur, which lay before (to the east of) Egypt (cf. Gen 25:18<\/span>). Shur<\/em> is the desert of Jifar, i.e., that portion of the desert of Arabia which borders upon Egypt (see at Gen 16:7<\/span>). Havilah<\/em>, the country of the Chaulotaeans<\/em>, on the border of Arabia Petraea towards Yemen (see at Gen 10:29<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Sa 15:8-9<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Their king, Agag<\/em>, he took alive (on the name, see at Num 24:7<\/span>), but all the people he banned with the edge of the sword, i.e., he had them put to death without quarter. “ All<\/em>,” i.e., all that fell into the hands of the Israelites. For it follows from the very nature of the case that many escaped, and consequently there is nothing striking in the fact that Amalekites are mentioned again at a later period (1Sa 27:8<\/span>; 1Sa 30:1<\/span>; 2Sa 8:12<\/span>). The last remnant was destroyed by the Simeonites upon the mountains of Seir in the reign of Hezekiah (1Ch 4:43<\/span>). Only, king Agag did Saul and the people (of Israel) spare, also “ the best of the sheep and oxen, and the animals of the second birth, and the lambs and everything good; these they would not ban<\/em>.” , according to D. Kimchi and R. Tanch. , are , i.e., animalia secundo partu edita <\/em>, which were considered superior to the others (vid., Roediger<\/em> in Ges. Thes<\/em>. p. 1451); and , pasture lambs, i.e., fat lambs. There is no necessity, therefore, for the conjecture of Ewald<\/em> and Thenius, , fattened, and , vineyards; nor for the far-fetched explanation given by Bochart, viz., camels with two humps and camel-saddles, to say nothing of the fact that camel-saddles and vineyards are altogether out of place here. In “ all that was good<\/em> ” the things already mentioned singly are all included. , the property; here it is applied to cattle, as in Gen 33:14<\/span>. = , despised, undervalued. The form of the word is not contracted from a noun and the participle ( Ges. Lehrgeb<\/em>. p. 463), but seems to be a participle Niph<\/em>. formed from a noun . But as such a form is contrary to all analogy, Ewald<\/em> and Olshausen regard the reading as corrupt. (from ): flowing away; used with reference to diseased cattle, or such as have perished. The reason for sparing the best cattle is very apparent, namely selfishness. But it is not so easy to determine why Agag should have been spared by Saul. It is by no means probable that he wished thereby to do honour to the royal dignity. O. v. Gerlach<\/em> ‘s supposition, that vanity or the desire to make a display with a royal slave was the actual reason, is a much more probable one.<\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:4<\/span>. Telaim.<\/strong> Most likely the same as Telem<\/em> (Jos. 15:21<\/span>; Jos. 15:24<\/span>), a city lying on the eastern border of Judah, and therefore near the territory of the Amalekites. Ten thousand men of Judah.<\/strong> This implies that the two hundred thousand were from the other tribes. (Keil<\/em>.) The separate mention of the men of Judah shows how little union there was between Judah and Ephraim even at this time; a circumstance which throws light upon the whole after history. (See 2Sa. 11:11<\/span>). The presence of these men arose, no doubt, from their tribe being the chief sufferers from the inroads of the Amalekites. (Biblical Commentary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:6<\/span>. Kenites.<\/strong> A tribe first mentioned in Gen. 15:19<\/span>. Their origin is hidden from us, but we may fairly infer that they were a branch of the larger nation of Midian, from the fact that Jethro, who in Exo. 2:15<\/span>, etc., is represented as priest or prince of Midian, and is in Jdg. 1:16<\/span>; Jdg. 4:11<\/span>, as distinctly said to have been a Kenite They were therefore descended immediately from Abraham by his wife Keturah, and in this relationship and the connection with Moses we find the key to their continued alliance with Israel. The important services rendered by the sheikh of the Kenites to Moses during a time of great pressure and difficulty, were rewarded by a promise of firm friendship between the two nations (Num. 10:32<\/span>). And this promise was gratefully remembered long after (1Sa. 15:6<\/span>). The connection then commenced lasted as firmly as a connection could last between a settled people like Israel and one whose tendencies were so nomadic as the Kenites. They seem to have accompanied the Israelites in their wanderings (Num. 24:21-22<\/span>, etc.) But these over, they forsook the neighbourhood of the towns and betook themselves to freer airto the wilderness of Judah, which is to the south of Arad (Jdg. 1:16<\/span>), where they dwelt among the people of the districtthe Amalekites, who wandered in that dry region, and among whom they were living when Saul made his expedition there. (Smiths Biblical Dictionary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:7<\/span>. HavilahShur.<\/strong> Havilah, according to Gen. 25:18<\/span>, the boundary of the Ishmaelites, probably therefore in the south-east on the border of Arabia Petrea and Arabia Felix. 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<\/span>). Saul thus smote the Amalekites through their territory from south-east towards the west and north-west. (Erdmann<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:8<\/span>. Agag.<\/strong> Evidently a reduplicate variety of the Egyptian Hak (ruler<\/em>). This was the common title of the Amalekite king. Saul spared him probably to enjoy the glory of displaying so distinguished a captive. Josephus<\/em> distinctly asserts that the beauty and tallness of his body made so fine an appearance, and Saul admired it so much, that he thought him worthy of preservation (cf. 1Ki. 20:32-34<\/span>). (Jamieson<\/em>.) All the people.<\/strong> That is, speaking generally, some survived, of course; the Amalekites appear afterwards, 1Sa. 27:8<\/span>; 1Sa. 30:1<\/span>; 2Sa. 8:12<\/span>. Their complete annihilation is mentioned in 1Ch. 4:43<\/span>. (Erdmann<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:9<\/span>. Fatlings.<\/strong> Literally of the second tort. Kimchi<\/em> and others understand the word to denote animals of the second birth, which were thought better than others.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:13<\/span>. Samuel came to Saul.<\/strong> In the place (Gilgal) where he had solemnly pledged Saul and the people to unconditional obedience, he now executes judgment for disobedience to the Divine will. (Erdmann<\/em>.) I have performed, etc.<\/strong> Self-will and rashness have hitherto been Sauls chief faults. He now seems to add falsehood and hypocrisy. (Biblical Commentary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:15<\/span>. The people spared, etc.<\/strong> The falsehood and hypocrisy of these words lay upon the very surface; for even if the cattle spared were really intended as sacrifices to the Lord, not only the people, but Saul also, would have had their own interests in view (vid<\/em>. 1Sa. 15:9<\/span>), since the flesh of thank-offerings was appropriated to sacrificial meals. (Keil<\/em>.) Every word uttered by Saul seems to indicate the breaking down of his moral character. There is something thoroughly mean in his attempt to shift the responsibility of what was done from his own kingly shoulders to those of the people, One feels that after the scene so forcibly described in this chapter, Saul must have forfeited his own self-respect, and that his downward career was henceforth almost inevitable. (Biblical Commentary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:17<\/span>. When thou wast little.<\/strong> The reference here to Sauls own words (1Sa. 9:21<\/span>), 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. (Erdmann<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:18<\/span>. Sinners.<\/strong> As though God would justify his commission to destroy them. So it is said of the men of Sodom, that they were sinners before the Lord. (Biblical Commentary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:19<\/span>. Fly upon.<\/strong> Expressive of eagerness, passionate craving. (Erdmann<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:21<\/span>. The Lord thy God.<\/strong> As if he had been showing honour to Samuel, as well as to God, when he was disobeying both. (Wordsworth<\/em>.) As if he had more zeal for the glory of God than was felt by Samuel. (Biblical Commentary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:22<\/span>. Hath the Lord,<\/strong> etc. This fundamental ethical truth is affirmed, with unmistakable reference to these words of Samuel, in the classical passages Psa. 50:8-14<\/span>; Psa. 51:18-19<\/span>; Isa. 1:11<\/span>; Mic. 6:6-8<\/span>; Hos. 6:6<\/span>; Jer. 6:20<\/span>. (Erdmann<\/em>.) 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 in the memory of the hearers in all generations. (Wordsworth<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:23<\/span>. Literally, Rebellion<\/em> is the sin of soothsaying, and opposition is heathenism and idolatry.<\/p>\n MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPHS.<\/em>1Sa. 15:4-9<\/span><\/em>; <\/em>1Sa. 15:13-23<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n SAULS SECOND ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE<\/p>\n I. God will not accept a partial obedience to any of His commands<\/strong>. There is nothing strange or unreasonable in this. If a human ruler gives a command, he will not be satisfied if the person to whom he gives it obeys it just so far as it suits his convenience or agrees with his fancy and no farther. Anything less than a whole obedience is no obedience in the estimation of a fellow-creature. If a soldier receives an order from his general to execute a certain military movement, he is not expected to consult his own wishes or his own judgment, but he must sink his own will entirely in the will of his superior, and fulfil his command to the very letter. However stern may be the work to be done, whatever sacrifice of personal feeling may be involved, anything less than an observance of the commandment in its entirety will be counted as grave a crime as the non-observance of the whole. If a father directs his son to perform a given task, and the son executes about half of that which is required of him, the father will consider that his command has been disobeyed. If this is the case with human superiors, it cannot be expected that the Holy and All-wise God, whose commandshowever stern they may sometimes seemare always perfectly just and good, will be satisfied with less than an entire obedience to His commands. He is surrounded by ten thousand faithful and mighty angelic servants, who render to him a perfect and unquestioning service, and although imperfect and sinful creatures cannot offer to Him a service equal to theirs, yet there are Divine commands which men are able to carry out to the letter, and which they must so carry out if they would not incur the penalty of disobedient servants of the Most High. Such a command was that which was here given to Saulit was one which he could obeyone for the non-observance of which he could not plead inabilityone which he did not attempt to say he was unable to perform. His partial obedience was rejectedhis non-observance of all the details of the Divine command was accounted as direct an act of defiance of Gods directions as if he had taken no action whatever against the Amalekites. And so God will ever account compliance with His commands, which is measured not by His requirements but by mans inclinations.<\/p>\n II. Where the condition is not fulfilled which is included in the Divine plan of blessing, God repents, not by changing His mind, but by changing His method in relation to the sinner.<\/strong> It is obvious that God cannot undergo a change of disposition or of motive. He is perfect in goodness, and therefore, in all His dealings with His creatures He must always have their welfare in view. He must always be willing to do for them that which is best for their highest interests. It is not possible for the Ruler of the world to act from any of the unworthy motives which sometimes influence men in their conduct towards each other. And being as infinite in wisdom as He is in goodness, He can have no better plans than His original plans, no second thoughts which are better than His first. When, therefore, God speaks of Himself as repenting<\/em>, He speaks of a change of His dealings with a man, which are the result of a change in that mans attitude towards Himself. Such a change is quite compatible with an unchangeable character and disposition, and is, indeed, the result of it. To men of the same character Gods attitude is the same now as it was ages ago, and it will be the same to the end of time, and when a mans relations to God are altered it is in consequence of a change in himself, and not in the unchangeable God. There was no change in God when, in consequence of Sauls non-compliance with the conditions of kingship, God rejected him from being king over Israel. He had been anointed by the Lord to be captain over His inheritance (1Sa. 10:1<\/span>)in other words to be His vicegerent in Israel, and when he refused to act in that capacity God proved His own unchangeableness by changing His method of dealing with him. A purpose of blessing on the part of God towards men always includes a condition to be fulfilled on their part, and a purpose of judgment always includes a continuance on the part of the sinner of the conduct which has provoked the judgment. This is the explanation of the repentance of God in relation to the men of the old world, and in relation to the Ninevites. In the first case God sent judgment because the offenders refused to repent, and in the second instance He revoked His sentence of judgment because the men of Nineveh were willing to forsake their sins and return to Him for pardon. (See Gen. 6:5-6<\/span>; Jon. 3:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n III. Obedience is better than the offering to God of any other sacrifice.<\/strong> <\/p>\n 1. Because it is a sacrifice of far higher value<\/em>. Obedience is the giving up of the will to the will of anotherit is therefore the sacrifice of the whole man. When a man has given himself thus to God, he has offered to Him all that he has to offerall his powers of soul and body as well as all his material possessions. This was the sacrifice which Adam offered to his Maker before he sinned, and this is the offering which has been for ages offered to God by His sons who have never at any time resisted His will. This is far more precious, and therefore far more acceptable to the Lord, than thousands of rams, or ten thousand rivers of oil<\/em> (Mic. 6:7<\/span>), because it is a spiritual and moral sacrifice. <\/p>\n 2. It is a sacrifice which can be offered at any time and in any place<\/em>. The sacrifices of the Levitical law were required to be offered in certain places. A man who desired to sacrifice to the Lord could only do so by coming up to the place appointed, and hence his offerings could only be made at intervals. But obedience is a sacrifice which can always be rendered to Godan expression of love to Him which can be made everywhere and always. <\/p>\n 3. It is a sacrifice which every man can offer for himself<\/em>. Even in Israel there might have been men at times too poor to be able to bring the least costly material offering to the altar of the Lord; but none is ever too poor to offer his will to Godto give himself up to His guidance and submit to His commands. And this is a sacrifice in which there is no need of the intervention of a third personan offering in which every man can be his own priest. <\/p>\n 4. It is the sacrifice which alone can make any other sacrifice acceptable<\/em>. All other offerings without this are vain oblations, and even an abomination (Isa. 1:13<\/span>) unto Him who owns every beast of the forest and the cattle upon a thousand hills (Psa. 50:10<\/span>). To expect a Holy and Spiritual Being to be willing to accept anything less than the offering of the heart, is to expect Him to be satisfied with less than would often content a fellow-creature. Many a man would spurn a gift which was not an outcome of inward feeling, and yet Gods creatures sometimes act as if they thought their Maker could be bribed by such an offering.<\/p>\n OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS<\/em><\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:6<\/span>. Thus does every good thing reward itself; nothing remains forgotten; often in later centuries the seed sown in an old past yet everywhere comes up gloriously, and children and childrens children derive advantage from the good done by their fathers.Schlier<\/em>.<\/p>\n He that is not less in mercy than in justice, as he challenged Amaleks sin of their succeeding generations so he derives the recompense of Jethros kindness unto his far descended issue. 1Sa. 15:13<\/span>. 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 gates of death.Wordsworth<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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 of secresy. Can the God that made the heart not know it? Can He that comprehends all things be shut out of our close corners? Saul was otherwise crafty enough, yet herein his simplicity is palpable. Sin can besot even the wisest man; and there was never but folly in wickedness No man brags so much of holiness as he who wants it. True obedience is joined ever with humility and fear of unknown errors. Falsehood is bold, and can say, I have fulfilled the commandment of the Lord.Bp. Hall<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:14<\/span>. Let us aim after such a walk and conversation as that we can be natural in our demeanour, and not artificial and forced; such a life as will bear inspection behind the scenes, and as will not compel those who watch for souls to ask, as they look around, What meaneth this or that?<\/em> and while asking the question to feel the sad truth of the matter to be, that the thing which calls forth the question is in our own case, as it was in Sauls, only so much spared of that which God has commanded us to subdue and destroy, so much permitted to live which God had required us to conquer and to slay.Miller<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:16<\/span>. We must not look to what hypocrites say of themselves, but to what Gods word says of them.S. Schmid<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:17<\/span>. Observe the contrast between Saul and Paul. Saul of Gibeah lost an earthly kingdom by pride, but Saul of Tarsus gained a heavenly kingdom by humility (1Co. 15:10<\/span>).Wordsworth<\/em>.<\/p>\n There is an ingratitude in every sin, and that is to be considered. Good turns aggravate unkindness, and our offences are increased by our obligations.Trapp<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:20<\/span>. Men are apt to cry out with Saul, I have obeyed the commandment of the Lord; but, alas, when it comes to be examined, how have they obeyed Him? Possibly they have, with Saul, destroyed the Amalekites; have constantly and openly opposed the declared enemies of religion. Moreover, perhaps, whatever was vile and refuse<\/em> that they have destroyed utterly. Whatever sins did not easily beset them, nor offer them strong temptations, these sins they have both heartily avoided themselves, and severely condemned in other men. But the best of the sheep and of the oxen<\/em>, the things which were dear to them, like a right hand or a right eye, these they could not spare. And yet, as Saul endeavoured to transfer the blame upon the people, so, in the other case also, it is not the men themselves, it is not their reason and judgment, that chooses the sin, but their inferior appetites, their passions and affections choose it for them, and drive them into it, even perhaps in a manner against their wills.Dr. S. Clark<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:22-23<\/span>. It was as much as to say that the sum and substance of Divine worship consisted in obedience, with which it should always begin, and that sacrifices were, so to speak, simple appendices, the force and worth of which were not so great as obedience to the precepts of God.Calvin<\/em>.<\/p>\n All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a God. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God.Keil<\/em>.<\/p>\n This saying of Samuel came literally true in Sauls case. Through disobedience he was forsaken of God, and became a prey to the Evil Spirit, and was led on in time to resort to witchcraft (1Sa. 27:7<\/span>), and perhaps to consult seraphim<\/em> (see 1Sa. 19:13<\/span>). Here is a solemn warning for these latter days.Wordsworth<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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 kingdom, it is stubbornness and rebellion.Scott<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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. 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 It is impossible for him who is not obedient to God to lay any command upon men. That is what these words (The Lord hath rejected thee,) and the aim of God therein mean. The authorities must not proceed from their own will and notion, but in everything must take Gods word and will for their rule. If He does not drive 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 sight, and vainly write themselves by the grace of God, when He Himself does not so acknowledge them.Berlenberger Bible<\/em>.<\/p>\n God rejects Saul from being king over Israel who had rejected God from being King over Saul.T. Adams<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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.Hengstenberg<\/em>.<\/p>\n It is a holier and a better thing to do ones duty, than to make duties for ones self and then set about them.Spurgeon<\/em>.<\/p>\n Why was sacrifice good, but because it was commanded? What difference was there betwixt slaughter and sacrifice but obedience?Bp. Hall<\/em>.<\/p>\n Saul lived to give in his own person the painful but the clearest evidence of the identity, as far as concerns a common origin and principle of action, which may exist between two very different crimes The same disposition which evinced itself in those acts of rebellion, which he committed all the while he was crying down witchcraft, induced him to do the very thing which he censured when occasion pressed The security against our being guilty of any particular form of transgression is not that we condemn it, but that the evil principle within us which excites to its commission, is subdued and removed by Divine grace.Miller<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Sa. 15:4-23<\/span>. The fall of King Saul shows: <\/p>\n (1) How unrepented and only whitewashed sin at the first severe temptation breaks out as manifest and criminal self-seeking. Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
If we sow good works, succession shall reap them, and we shall be happy in making them so. It is the manner of God, first to separate before He judge, as a good husbandman weeds his corn ere it be ripe for the sickle, and goes to the fan ere he goes to the fire. Why should we not imitate God, and separate ourselves, that we may not be judged; separate not one Kenite from another, but every Kenite from among the Amalekites, else if we will needs live with Amalek we cannot think much to die with him.Bp. Hall<\/em>.<\/p>\n
(2) How this self-seeking is so blinding as to tell itself and others the lie that it is a labour for the Lord.J. Disselhoff<\/em>.<\/p>\n