Saul Is Rejected as King, 1-31

Summary:

‘The writer’s purpose in this detailed narrative is to confirm Saul’s unsuitability to rule Israel, and to confirm Yahweh’s rejection of him. Through Samuel, Saul was given explicit orders. He carried them out in part, but saw no harm in disregarding the rest of them. V 24 shows that he knew perfectly well what he was doing (and tells us the reason why he did so), but he told lies about it twice over (13, 20), pretending that he thought he had obeyed orders. Finally, he was forced to admit the truth and confess that he had sinned, and violated the LORD’s command. The result was God’s final rejection of him, and also the final breach between him and Samuel.’ (NBC)

15:1 Then Samuel said to Saul, “I was the one the LORD sent to anoint you as king over his people Israel. Now listen to what the LORD says. 15:2 Here is what the LORD of hosts says: ‘I carefully observed how the Amalekites opposed Israel along the way when Israel came up from Egypt. 15:3 So go now and strike down the Amalekites. Destroy everything that they have. Don’t spare them. Put them to death—man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey alike.’ ”

The Samuel said to Saul – Despite many failures, Saul is given yet another chance to heed God’s instructions.

The Lord had sent Samuel to anoint [Saul] as king – As Goldingay remarks:

‘Saul did not take seriously enough the fact that he was Yahweh’s “anointed.” He had been taken hold of and designated by God to do what God wanted done, to act as God’s representative. There are things that happen in the world that so incense God that they make it essential for God to take action against them, and such are the deeds of the Amalekites. They are a symbol of human resistance to God and God’s purposes in the world and of human inhumanity toward other human beings. As God’s anointed, Saul is God’s means of taking this action against them.’

The Amalekites – Their enmity against God’s people stretches back several centuries.  In Ex 17/Deut 25 they attacked the Israelites on their way from Egypt to Sinai, picking off the weak and vulnerable:

‘The Amalekites stand for opposition to God’s purpose that is designed to bring about the redemption of the world, and for unprincipled violence toward weak people, and their story stands for God’s implacable commitment to punishing the kind of wickedness they embody.’ (Goldingay)

“Destroy everything that they have. Don’t spare them. Put them to death—man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey alike.’ ” – This is one of a handful of occasions when the Israelites were ordered to destroy an entire population (see Deut 7:2; 13:15; 20:16–17; 25:19).  This practice of ‘total devotion’:

‘means there is no danger of making war because of what you may gain from it; you gain nothing.’ (Goldingay)

The issue with these people groups was that:

‘they had incorporated grave sins into the very fabric of their society and continued in their sins over a considerable period of time. The Amalekites, for example, had created a culture that had no qualms about killing frail Israelites and kidnapping children for the sake of material gain (Deut 25:17–18; see also Jdg 6:3–6; 1 Sam 14:48; 30:1–3). Likewise, to be a Canaanite entailed being a supporter of a polytheistic religion that practiced child sacrifice, prostitution, bestiality, and homosexuality. These cultures had become spiritually gangrenous and had been that way for hundreds of years (Gen 15:16; Deut 25:17–18). Since they refused to change, the only way to keep their deadly influences from spreading to other societies was through the complete elimination of every object (Ex 23:24; 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; Jdg 2:2) and person (Deut 7:2; 13:15; 20:16–17) associated with them.’

(Apologetics Study Bible for Students).

Chisolm summarises:

‘The reason for this is clearly stated: the Lord intends to “punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt” (v. 2; cf. Exod. 17:8–16). Moses announces that “the LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation” (Exod. 17:16). Later, as Moses speaks to a new generation that is ready to enter the land, he urges them to remember how the Amalekites attacked the Israelites when they were tired and vulnerable (Deut. 25:17–18). He commands them to “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” and emphatically urges them, “Do not forget!” (v. 19).’

‘The wages of sin is death’; and, in various ways, the verdict and associated punishment may be brought forward, whether in reaping the miserable effects of our own sin, or in experiencing the general suffering that arises in this present broken world, or, occasionally, as here, in receiving the hammer-blow of divine wrath.

Because this was the Lord’s judgment on the Amalekites, the Israelites were to take nothing for themselves – not men as slaves, nor women as wives, nor livestock as plunder.

Dean Stanley said of Saul:

‘His religion was never blended with his moral nature – his religious zeal was always breaking out in wrong channels on irregular occasions in his own way … It broke out in wild, ungovernable acts of zeal and superstition, and then left him a prey more than ever to his own savage disposition.’

On the other hand:

‘There was a strange charm about him too.  Even as in our own day we may know some reckless youth, with frank, impetuous disposition, and occasional impulses to right things, who is making shipwreck of himself, and whom, in spite of his folly, we can not help liking, so we are drawn toward Saul notwithstanding his wickedness, and we can well understand how Samuel felt when he “mourned” over him.  He had hoped so much from him; he had seen so much that was lovable about him; and yet he had been so sadly disappointed in him, that we do not wonder at his sorrow.’ (Taylor)

This account illustrates something of:

‘God’s implacable opposition to the ill-treatment of weak people by powerful people and God’s intention to put down powerful people who act in that way. History provides example after example of the way powerful empires get put down, and the Scriptures invite us to see God’s activity behind their downfall.’ (Goldingay)

The same writer continues:

‘So we are right to be scared of this story. It reminds us of what God might decide to do to us, insofar as we are Amalek. The question raised for us is whether our life as a nation is characterized by ill-treatment of weak people rather than by commitment to them.’

The Amalekites opposed Israel along the way when Israel came up from Egypt – They are to be punished for the way they mistreated the Israelites (Ex 17:8-16).

This can be explained in terms of the Amalekites utter wickedness:

‘The Amalekites, in their persistent refusal to fear God (Dt 25:18), sowed the seeds of their own destruction. God is patient and slow to anger, “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6); he nevertheless “does not leave the guilty unpunished” (v.7). 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 permits entire families or nations to be destroyed if their corporate representatives are incorrigibly wicked (cf. Jos 7:1, 10–13, 24–26).’ (EBC)

“Destroy everything” – This encapsulates the concept of the ‘ban’, which is:

‘a process of special consecration whereby something is definitively given over to Yahweh and therefore no longer accessible for common use.’ (Firth)

How do we account for the wide scope of this ‘ban’? –

‘The fact that even livestock were included in the ‘ban’ shows that there was a sort of sacrificial aspect to it; in a sense, killing humans and animals was a way of handing them over to God. The people who were so wicked must be eliminated as a threat, and they and all their belongings were, by the ‘ban’, handed over to Yahweh. It was greed, not kindliness, which caused the ‘ban’ to be broken (9, 19).’ (NBC)

Arnold comments on the characteristics of such a ‘holy war’:

‘In such wars, Yahweh himself initiates the conflict and ensures its success. He is a “warrior” who graces the battlefield and Israel’s war camp with his presence. Such wars become an act of worship, surrounded with appropriate sacrifices and cultic rituals, including at times spiritual preparation such as circumcision and Passover celebration. Sometimes the ark of the covenant is used to underscore the fact that Yahweh is present. Typically when engaged in holy war, Israel is supposed to disregard the number of troops amassed in the enemy’s ranks. Since Yahweh will fight the battles, the number of troops is not significant, whereas Israel’s character and state of mind are central (Deut. 20:2–9).’

The Amalekites we guilty of opposing, not just God’s people, but God himself:

‘Nations like the Amalekites who wanted to exterminate the Jews weren’t just waging war on Israel; they were opposing Almighty God and His great plan of redemption for the whole world.’ (Wiersbe)

Dale Ralph Davis makes a number of points:

• God’s judgment on the Amalekites is just.  He is punishing them for what they did to Israel, v2b.
• Amalek had attacked the Israelites using dirty tactics, Ex 18:8-16.
• The present chapter demonstrates that Amalek has not changed over the years, v18, and that they are guilty of’war crimes’, v18.
• They have had 300 years to repent!
• God’s ‘good news’ includes proclamation not only of the year of the Lord’s favour but also the day of his vengeance, Isa 61:2.
• To hope for this is the bedrock of the prayers of God’s persecuted people, Rev 6:9-11.

Firth comments:

‘The sacral nature of ḥerem must be appreciated; such total destruction is difficult for contemporary readers, but even within Israel it could operate only if its sacral position was appreciated. Although it shows variation in practice, it was ultimately a sacrifice to Yahweh where nothing could be kept for another use. This is highlighted by Samuel’s insisting that Saul spare nothing.’

Firth further notes that:

• It is clear that, in this case at least it is God’s judgment on sin.
• In the NT such judgment is eschatological (but note the exceptional case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11).
• God’s verdict on sin remains fixed, though the form is not.
• The practice of things being devoted to destruction was being phased out by this time, suggesting a specific and limited purpose, associated with occupation of the land.
• In any case, no modern nation stands in the same relationship to God as Israel in the OT, and so none may conduct itself in the same way.

See this article by John Allister.

15:4 So Saul assembled the army and mustered them at Telaim. There were 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 men of Judah. 15:5 Saul proceeded to the city of Amalek, where he set an ambush in the wadi. 15:6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go on and leave! Go down from among the Amalekites! Otherwise I will sweep you away with them! After all, you were kind to all the Israelites when they came up from Egypt.” So the Kenites withdrew from among the Amalekites.

There were 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 men of Judah – Cf. ch. 14, where 3,000 is considered a significant force.  As Firth remarks, the solution to the problem may well lie with our understanding of the word ’elep, traditionally translated ‘thousand’ but which may equally be translated ‘clan’ or ‘military unit’.  So, the total size of the army may have been one thousand or so.

Klein, on the other hand, thinks that ‘a bit of hyperbole’ is employed:

‘in the number of Israelite troops involved (210,000; David attacked the Amalekites with 400 men in 1 Sam 30:10), in the geographic extent of the victory (cf. the comment on Havilah), and in the claim of total destruction of the Amalekites (cf. their subsequent raid on Ziklag and David’s battle with them in 1 Sam 30).’

Firth also comments on the Israel/Judah ratio,

‘since problems in the Negeb affected Judah and not Israel (understood as the northern tribes). The presence of a large northern contingent for a southern problem may suggest Saul was seeking to gain greater support in Judah.’

The city of Amalek – This may designate the more general area where they were living, for they were a nomadic group.  Alternatively, it may refer to a semi-permanent and fortified encampment.  If only the occupants of this encampment were attacked, we can better understand why the Amalekites continued to cause trouble for the Israelites (1 Sam 27:8).

15:7 Then Saul struck down the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, which is next to Egypt. 15:8 He captured King Agag of the Amalekites alive, but he executed all Agag’s people with the sword. 15:9 However, Saul and the army spared Agag, along with the best of the flock, the cattle, the fatlings, and the lambs, as well as everything else that was of value. They were not willing to slaughter them. But they did slaughter everything that was despised and worthless.

Saul struck down the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, which is next to Egypt – According to Klein, there is no problem with the mention of Shur, which is noted in 1 Sam 27:8 as situated at the extremity of Amalekite territory.  The location of Havilah is more problematic: some think it was in Western Arabia, giving enormous dimensions to the site of the battle.  Klein thinks that here, as elsewhere in this account, hyperbole is at play.

He executed all Agag’s people with the sword – ‘The description of the total destruction of “all” the people is hyperbolic, since the Amalekites survived to fight again (cf. 1 Sam 30:1).’ (EBC)

Sprinkle (Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence) agrees, suggesting that the phrase ‘man, woman, child, infant’ is a ‘rhythmic description’ of total defeat.

The Apologetics Study Bible for Students suggests that Saul destroyed all the Amalekites he found, not all that were in existence:

‘If Saul destroyed all of the Amalekites (except Agag), why did Israel have to fight them later on (27:8; 30:1, 16–17; 2Sm 1:8, 13; 1Ch 4:43)? In the context of Israelite history as a whole, it is clear that Saul killed all the Amalekites he found, not all those that existed. Many Amalekites would have abandoned their homes and become temporary war refugees in surrounding regions. Those who escaped prior to the battle lived to fight another day. David later did the same thing, going into temporary exile (1Sm 21:10) to avoid Saul’s army.’

Saul and the army spared Agag – Probably for political (not humanitarian) reasons.  Saul and his army may have wanted take him as a trophy of their victory, or as means of bargaining in some future conflict.

15:10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 15:11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from me and has not done what I told him to do.” Samuel became angry and he cried out to the LORD all that night.

Firth comments on the process of Saul’s acquisition and loss of the throne:

‘Just as Saul moved towards the throne through three key stages (anointing, acclamation, battle victory), his removal takes three stages (loss of dynasty, announcement of loss of rule, and death).’

Samuel became angry – But with whom or what? –

‘At Yahweh? At Saul? About the resulting situation? For whom or what did Samuel plead all night? For Saul, seeking forgiveness for him? For Israel, seeking protection for her? For himself, seeking endurance for the coming confrontation? Could the answer be, “Yes—all of the above”? Possibly.’ (Davis)

Joyce Baldwin comments:

‘In the first place, Samuel’s theology was being put in question. Against his better judgment he had co-operated in king-making, announcing that Saul was the one whom the Lord had chosen (1 Sa. 10:1, 24; 11:15). Now it appeared that the Lord, who ‘will not lie or repent’ (v. 29), had changed his mind, and Samuel could not come to terms with this challenge to God’s sovereignty.

In the second place, what was to become of the leadership of Israel? The country was in a worse plight than ever.

Last but not least, Samuel was torn within himself by the divine word, and needed to settle his own turmoil before the Lord. The personal cost of ministry is seen in the life of Samuel, and in this passage in particular.’

(Paragraphing added)

He cried out to the Lord all night – Samuel, in his old age, has a sleepless night, just as in his youth he had to bring a message of judgment to another leader of Israel (Eli).

Evans notes:

‘Samuel’s feelings at this point will be familiar to all who have been involved in teaching or mentoring others, putting something of themselves into the one mentored and then seeing them turn away from faith…Samuel continues to serve God in his old age and he stands as an example to us all of how to react to disappointment, frustration and the failure of people we love.’

15:12 Then Samuel got up early to meet Saul the next morning. But Samuel was informed, “Saul has gone to Carmel where he is setting up a monument for himself. Then Samuel left and went down to Gilgal.” 15:13 When Samuel came to him, Saul said to him, “May the LORD bless you! I have done what the LORD said.”

“Saul has gone to Carmel” – ‘a Calebite city in the Negeb, not the well-known northern site.’ (Firth)

“He is setting up a monument for himself” – No doubt he is seeking to remind the people of the benefits they have received from his kingship.  How ironic, then, to do so at the very time he has lost the Lord’s favour.  Up until this point, he seems, despite all his failings, to have had a genuine desire to please the Lord.  Now, self-interest and reputation take priority (Evans).

Firth comments:

‘Such a monument, placed strategically for Saul at the southern boundaries of Judah, suggests a process of self-aggrandisement out of keeping with Yahweh’s command.’

Vannoy insightfully suggests:

‘That Saul would set up a monument to himself suggests that in his own mind the battle against Amalek had ceased to be the Lord’s battle. It had become his own battle.’

And from this perspective:

‘It is only a short step to the conclusion that as payment for such a great accomplishment Saul had a right to share in the plunder and participate in a victory celebration in which the defeated enemy king would be put on display and a monument to the victorious king would be unveiled (van den Berg 1996a:129). In this scenario, Saul was no longer subordinate to Yahweh as an instrument of Yahweh’s judgment on Amalek, but rather he had become the autonomous absolute monarch. In effect, he had become the antitheocratic king. By telling the reader in advance about Saul’s erection of a monument to himself, the narrator has given the reader good reason to question Saul’s subsequent protestations of innocence and his effort to put a pious spin on his actions.’

“The Lord bless you!” – Saul’s greeting is ‘upbeat…almost jaunty’ (Davis).

“I have done what the Lord said” – A claim which contradicts what the Lord has revealed to Samuel (v11), and which contradicts the Lord’s previous instructions (v3).  In the light of v9, Saul’s disobedience appears to have been deliberate, and therefore the claim he now makes is dishonest.

Evans, however, wonders:

‘It is not clear whether this is deliberate dissimulation on Saul’s part or whether the mental problems that plagued him in later life began at this point, causing him to lose touch with reality. In either case, it is clear that he is held fully accountable for his actions.’

It is clear that Saul’s conduct is self-centred and self-serving in a number of ways:

*His obedience is partial at best, which is tantamount to disobedience (1 Sam. 15:8–9);
*He builds a “monument to himself” (v. 12);
*He attempts to shift the blame for any infractions from himself to the people (vv. 13–15; 20–21);
*His first confession is insincere, as evidenced by Samuel’s reaction (vv. 24–26); and ultimately
*He admits that all he actually cares about is his own honor (v. 30).

(Gospel Transformation Bible, paragraphing and bulleting added)

15:14 Samuel replied, “If that is the case, then what is this sound of sheep in my ears and the sound of cattle that I hear?” 15:15 Saul said, “They were brought from the Amalekites; the army spared the best of the flocks and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD our God. But everything else we slaughtered.”

“The army spared…but everything else we slaughtered” – Saul appears to be shifting the blame for the ‘sparing’ of the best of the animals, while including himself in the part that was more in line with the Lord’s command.

15:16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Wait a minute! Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” Saul said to him, “Tell me.” 15:17 Samuel said, “Is it not true that when you were insignificant in your own eyes, you became head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD chose you as king over Israel. 15:18 The LORD sent you on a campaign saying, ‘Go and exterminate those sinful Amalekites! Fight against them until you have destroyed them.’ 15:19 Why haven’t you obeyed the LORD? Instead you have greedily rushed upon the plunder! You have done what is wrong in the LORD’s estimation.”

“When you were insignificant…you became head of the tribes of Israel?” – Chapman reads Samuel’s words as: “Although you are small in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel?”

Chapman then comments on the weakness that this exposes in Saul’s character:

‘The force of Samuel’s comment is directed against Saul’s attempt to blame his troops for not following through with God’s command. As Israel’s king, Saul should be able to control his men. Ironically, however, Saul’s private sense of himself is at fatal variance with how he appears to others. Saul is a big man, and he values physical strength in others, but in his inability to discipline his own military he shows himself to lack inner stature. This weakness alone calls into question his fitness for the kingship.’ (Chapman)

‘Wicked men receive a great deal of goodness from God that they have cause to admire, and be thankful for every day, and but few live any considerable time who are not the subjects of special influences of God’s goodness to them in deliverance from trouble and danger. He heaps temporal good things upon them; he gives them wealth, and ease, and honor, and great prosperity. He distributes the world among them, and they show their great ingratitude in that, notwithstanding all God’s bounty to them, they will not learn righteousness. Thus Samuel reproves Saul for his great ingratitude, that he took no more notice of the great kindness of God to him.’ (Jonathan Edwards, “Sermon XIII,” Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2)

15:20 Then Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the LORD! I went on the campaign the LORD sent me on. I brought back King Agag of the Amalekites after exterminating the Amalekites. 15:21 But the army took from the plunder some of the sheep and cattle—the best of what was to be slaughtered—to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.”

“After exterminating the Amalekites” –

‘As it turned out, not even this was true. There were still Amalekites left alive. David later had to deal with the Amalekites (1 Samuel 27:8, 30:1, 2 Samuel 8:12). Haman, the evil man who tried to wipe out all the Jewish people in the days of Esther, was a descendant of Agag (Esther 3:1). Most ironic of all, when Saul was killed on the field of battle, an Amalekite claimed to deliver the final thrust of the sword (2 Samuel 1:8-10).’ (Source)

“The army took…” – As before (v15) Saul seems to be distancing himself from the actions of his soldiers, and therefore trying to excuse himself.

As Brueggemann remarks:

‘His defense is reminiscent of that of Adam, who seeks to shift the blame for his action (cf. Gen. 3:12).’

Further:

‘In order to vindicate himself, Saul divides the compound subject of “Saul and the people” (v. 9) to say Saul is innocent, the people are guilty. “I have listened (obeyed) … I have utterly destroyed.… But the people took of the spoil” (emphasis added). Moreover, even the action of the people is not an act of disobedience, for they intended only sacrifice.’

15:22 Then Samuel said,
“Does the LORD take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as he does in obedience?
Certainly, obedience is better than sacrifice;
paying attention is better than the fat of rams.
15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and presumption is like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king.”

As NBC notes, the sympathies of the modern reader tend to be with Saul.  After all, had he not spared king Agag (v9)?  But it is clear that he did not do so out of humanitarian motives.  The livestock were spared out of greed, and Agag was spared probably for political reasons.  The key issue is about ‘obedience’ (v22) versus ‘presumption’ (v23).

Following Davis, note here:

• Question, 22a
• Assertion, 22b
• Comparison, 23a
• Condemnation, 23b

The first two items rehearse a common theme in OT teaching, Ps 40:6–8; 50:8–15; 51:16–17; Prov 15:8; 21:3, 27; 28:9; Isa 1:11–15; Jer 6:19–20; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–24; Mic 6:6–8.

The rejection of sacrifices is not absolute, but relative.  As Davis writes:

‘Samuel…is saying that formal worship cannot be substituted for obedient life, external devotions for internal submission. Your Gloria Patri, Apostles’ Creed, Christian luncheons, and all-star Bible conferences—none of these matter unless you are keeping Christ’s commandments (1 John 2:3–4).’

Arnold comments:

‘Sacrifice is an external and physical phenomenon that reflects a spiritual reality between God and human. But if one’s motives are impure or ungodly, then the sacrifice itself is meaningless. Worse, it becomes nauseating to God (Isa. 1:13). Religious ritual always becomes a burden unless it is accompanied by appropriate heartfelt repentance, love, and adoration for God.’

The comparison between disobedience and idolatry is striking:

‘Samuel assumes that sin must be rightly identified (not listening to Yahweh’s voice is not failure or misunderstanding but rebellion and arrogance) and properly compared (it is in the same category as sheer pagan idolatry). You may not see the sinfulness of sin on its surface.’ (Davis)

The outward form of religion is worthless without heart-obedience:

‘Samuel met Saul at once with the assurance that such sacrifices were no excuse for an act of direct rebellion, and in so doing he altered his sentence, which is worthy to be printed in letters of gold and to be hung up before the eyes of the present generation: “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Be it ever in your remembrance that to obey, to keep strictly in the path of your Savior’s command, is better than any outward form of religion, and to hearken to his precept with an attentive ear is better than to bring the fat of rams, or anything else which you may wish to lay upon his altar.’ (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. 12, sermon 686)

Obedience is better than sacrifice – See also Isa 1:10–11, 13; 29:13; Jer 7:21–26; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–24; Mic 6:6–8; cf. Ps 50:9; 51:16; and Mark 12:28–34.

As Vannoy observes:

‘What both Samuel and the prophets championed is consistent: God is not interested in displays of outward piety that are used as a cover for disobedience. Religious or ritual acts that are performed in the absence of a heart desire to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands are not only unacceptable, they are an abomination (cf. Isa 66:2b–4). The tendency for religious people to move toward this sort of hypocrisy is a constant danger.’

Chisholm discusses the NT application of this axiom.  Obedience (to the law of love) is more important than religious formalism:

‘The New Testament makes it clear that all the law can be summarized in the simple commands to love God and to love one’s neighbor (Mark 12:29–31). One cannot do the former without doing the latter. A meaningful relationship with God (the vertical plane) is not possible unless one obeys God’s command to love one’s fellow human beings in tangible, practical ways (the horizontal plane).

So James (1:27) makes caring for those who are vulnerable and needy (epitomized by the widow and orphan) one of the twin pillars of genuine religion, because it fulfills the “royal law” of love for one’s neighbor (James 2:8).

Jesus teaches that one cannot expect to receive God’s forgiveness if one is not willing to forgive others (Mt 6:14–15).

Reconciling differences with a brother or sister must be given priority over formal religious acts (Mt 5:23–24).

Withholding one’s material goods from a needy brother is proof that one does not have a genuine relationship with God (1 John 3:17).

Treating one’s wife with disrespect can hinder one’s prayer life (1 Pet. 3:7).

These examples illustrate the basic principle that obedience (to the royal law of love in a NT context) has priority over sacrifice (or formal religious acts, such as offerings and prayer, in a NT context). In genuine biblical “religion,” obedience is foundational to having a vital relationship with God, in contrast to pagan religion, which seeks such a relationship through religious formalism.’

(Paragraphing added)

This teaching is alluded to by Jesus in Mt 9:11-13; 12:3-7 –

‘In the Gospel it is rendered, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (interpreting “obedience” as showing “mercy”). In the Gospels, Jesus emphasizes that love for a neighbor is more important than religious ritual. This is similar to Jesus’ response when asked about the greatest commandment, as he states, “To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mark 12:33).’

(Evans, Story of God Bible Commentary)

“The sin of divination” – Klein comments that:

‘Divination is consistently prohibited in the OT (cf. Deut 18:10 and 2 Kgs 17:17). It is a practice for which the wicked nations are criticized (Num 22:7; Deut 18:14; Josh 13:22; 1 Sam 6:2) and for which the false prophets are strongly censured (Jer 14:14; 27:9; 29:8; Ezek 13:6, 23; Mic 3:7).’

The comparison between Saul’s disobedience and divination and idolatry is apt:

‘Saul’s gradual descent into divination and witchcraft is clearly seen as the story progresses. From his initial attempt to inquire from the man of God regarding his father’s donkeys (9:6–10) to his oath of fasting (14:24), his frustrated efforts to inquire of Yahweh (14:37), his casting of lots to seize the sinner (14:41–42), his willingness to perform ritual rather than obey (13:9; 15:21), and his oath to kill Jonathan (14:44), we see how Saul’s superstitious ways moved him toward using orthodox Israelite practices in divinizing ways. Furthermore, the reference to “divination” here foreshadows the dark end to Saul’s life when he goes all the way and consults a witch at Endor in an attempt to gain some insurance of his success (1 Sam 28).’ (Evans, Story of God Bible Commentary)

“…like the evil of idolatry” – ‘Samuel’s judgment in turn exposes Saul’s version of sacrifice as not only a type of false worship but as the equivalent of worshiping false gods.’ (Chapman)

In outward appearance, Saul was orthodox.  At heart, however, he was an idolater:

‘In outward appearances (and possibly in his own duplicit evaluation of himself), Saul was a practicing Yahwist. This can be seen in his use of orthodox Israelite rituals and his later expulsion of mediums and spiritists from Israel (1 Sam 28:3). While on the surface Saul was orthodox, underneath he was bent toward idolatry and divination. The story of Saul can give good cause for examining our own faith. While on the surface we may appear orthodox (faithful, church-attending, tithing Christians), below the surface are we submitting to God or hoping to manipulate him through our religious deeds into giving us what we want in life?’ (Evans, Story of God Bible Commentary)

“He has rejected you as king” – The purpose of this chapter is to explain this very fact.

Serving in the sanctuary does not excuse us from obedience to God’s commands:

‘It is a frequent human error to think that God will overlook and forgive all one’s sins so long as one is careful to attend the shrine (or church) and offer sacrifices (or hymns of praise). Several OT prophets had to attack this false reasoning; Amos could even describe God as saying that he ‘hated’ and ‘despised’ religious feasts, sacrifices and offerings (Am. 5:21–24). In the same way, we tend to think false worship is the worst possible sin against God; Samuel said that arrogant disobedience was just as bad.’ (NBC)

15:24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have disobeyed what the LORD commanded and what you said as well. For I was afraid of the army, and I followed their wishes. 15:25 Now please forgive my sin! Go back with me so I can worship the LORD.”

“I have sinned” – At first sight, it looks as though Saul’s repentance is genuine.

But he follows up with an excuse: “For I was afraid of the army, and I followed their wishes” – This makes clear what was implied in vv15,21 – that Saul had given in to the demands of his soldiers.  He claimed to have obeyed the Lord, v20, but actually he has obeyed his men.  Cf. Acts 5:29.

We might add that Saul’s subsequent behaviour shows that there was no change of heart leading to a change of behaviour.  There was no true repentance.

B.T. Arnold points up the superficiality and inadequacy of Saul’s repentance:

‘The words and actions of Saul in 1 Samuel 15 were self-serving and self-vindicating. His confession is coerced by the prophet bit by bit, and even then it is disingenuous. He acknowledges wrongdoing instead of repudiating it; Saul regrets his actions because they leave him vulnerable, not because they were self-destructive and wrong. His words of confession are the same as Israel’s at Mizpah: “I have sinned” (again using ḥāṭāʾ [1 Sam 15:24; repeated in 1 Sam 15:30]). However, he fails to exemplify the same wholehearted repentance that Israel illustrates. Instead, his words are followed by more words of defensive argumentation, deflection and rationalization. His “I have sinned” was followed by an unfortunate “because”; he sinned because he “was afraid of the people.” Saul appears more interested in placating Samuel and the people of Israel than in seeking forgiveness and restoration from Yahweh.’

(DOT:HB, art. ‘Samuel, Books of’)

In his commentary, Arnold compares Saul with David on this point:

‘Saul’s loquacious answers to Samuel in this text must be read together with Israel’s example in 7:6 and especially with David’s brief and fitting response to Nathan when that prophet confronted David with his sins: “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Sam. 12:13).18 With David there was no evasion or argumentation. He did not attempt to defend himself or to offer a contrived confession that would in some way explain his virtual innocence. He was a broken man (2 Sam. 12:16–18; cf. also the traditional association of Ps. 51 to this event).’

“Please forgive my sin!  Go back with me so I can worship the Lord” – ‘I was under pressure.  Look, I’ve apologised.  Now can we just forget about the whole thing, and go back to the way things were.’

Chapman notes:

‘Conspicuous at this point…is the lack of any attempt on Saul’s part to plead directly with God for forgiveness. He pleads instead with Samuel and, ironically, promises to worship God if he is forgiven. Yet the problem all along has been Saul’s inability to approach God as a real presence, and here he gives no sign that he has understood what previously had escaped him.’

It is possible that the word translated ‘go back’ means ‘repent’ in this instance (also in vv26,30,31).  This is especially so, since it is not clear where Saul and Samuel might ‘go back’ to.  Saul would then be asking Samuel to ‘repent’ with him (i.e. to accept his repentance:

‘Supporting this understanding of Saul’s request are the subsequent actions of Samuel. After turning back to repent with Saul, Samuel completes the repentance of Saul by killing the Amalekite king, Agag, and thereby righting Saul’s wrongdoing (15:32–33). Perhaps Samuel hoped that God might have a change of heart after all.’ (Evans, Story of God Bible Commentary)

15:26 Samuel said to Saul, “I will not go back with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel!”

In contrast to Saul’s trivialising of his sin, Samuel emphasises its seriousness.

15:27 When Samuel turned to leave, Saul grabbed the edge of his robe and it tore. 15:28 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to one of your colleagues who is better than you! 15:29 The Preeminent One of Israel does not go back on his word or change his mind, for he is not a human being who changes his mind.” 15:30 Saul again replied, “I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel. Go back with me so I may worship the LORD your God.” 15:31 So Samuel followed Saul back, and Saul worshiped the LORD.

Saul grabbed the edge of his robe – Possibly ‘a gesture of supplication’ (Davis).

It tore – providing Samuel with an opportunity for an apt parable.

“The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to one of your colleagues who is better than you!” – Brueggemann notes the differences and similarities between this meeting between Saul and Samuel and the interaction between David and Nathan in 2 Sam 12 –

‘In both accounts the king is indicted and guilty. In both the king admits guilt, repents, and seeks forgiveness. Then, however, the narratives present sharply contrasting outcomes. Saul is rejected; his confession is ignored and no forgiveness is offered. By contrast David has his confession accepted. He is forgiven and permitted to continue his rule (2 Sam. 12:13).’

So far, so perceptive.  But Brueggemann would then have us choose between a God whose forgiveness is ‘arbitrary’ or a tradition which is biassed for David and against Saul.  Brueggemann claims that:

‘No reason is given for the acceptance of David and the rejection of Saul in these two narratives. The narrative, however, does not linger, explain, or express embarrassment.’

This is very far from the case.  The present narrative repeatedly draws attention to Saul’s essential superficiality, unreliability and insincerity, whereas David’s behaviour, reprehensible as it is, is followed by deep and meaningful repentance (see also Psa 51).

“God does not go back on his word or change his mind” – But if God does not change his mind, how can he now regret having made Saul king (v11, 35b)?  The question is sharpened by the observation that v11, v35b and v29 all use a form of the same word (nāḥam, repent).

Richard and Christopher Hays, in ‘The Widening of God’s Mercy’, state the issue sharply:

‘This is…a lie.  How do we know? Because God said so, earlier in the same chapter: “I regret that I made Saul king” (1 Sam 15:11). And if that weren’t clear enough, the omniscient narrator summarizes at the end of the chapter, “And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel” (15:35).’

I find this extraordinary, standing as it does at the beginning of the important book on sexual ethics by two eminent scholars.

Others have given a much better account of the tension:

‘God may in mercy delay punishment, or give men and women opportunities to change their minds in repentance; but he does not change his mind about his purposes and plans.’ (NBC)

Davis notes that the Lord’s repentance is paradoxical.  His ‘repentance’ is mentioned 29 times in the OT (beginning with Gen 6:6).  It always seems to have an emotional component.  No doubt it is somewhat anthropomorphic.  It does not suggest fickleness on the part of God, but rather intense sorrow over human sin.  He is not taken by surprise, but he does grieve.  Indeed, he shares in Samuel’s mourning.  God is not impervious to the tragedy of human sin.  God cares about it.  Verse 29 underscores the paradox of divine repentance, and prompts our worship and adoration:

‘This God who both repents and does not repent is the only God we can serve. Only in the consistent God of verse 29 and in the sorrowful God of verse 35 do we find the God worthy of praise. Here is a God who is neither fickle in his ways nor indifferent in his responses. Here is a God who has both firmness and feeling. If we cannot comprehend we can perhaps apprehend, at least enough to adore.’

Chester puts it this way: it is not God who has changed, but Saul.  It is precisely because God is consistent with himself that he responds differently when a person sins with impunity.  For him to do otherwise would be for him to deny his own character.  But God’s faithfulness is also our hope.  He is not fickle, or capricious.  His justice is consistent.  But his faithfulness also means that he will always forgive those who truly repent.

Fretheim (cited by Vannoy) thinks that, rather than being a generalisaton about God’s character, this statement looks forward to God’s decision to give the kingdom to David, a decision which he will never revoke.

“My people…your God” – Saul identifies with his people but distances himself from God.

“I have sinned.  But please honour me before the elders of my people and before Israel” – Once again, the insincerity of Saul’s repentance becomes apparent.  He is more concerned about his reputation before his people than about his standing with God.  Cf. Jn 12:43.

Following Chester, we may summarise the inadequacy of Saul’s repentance:

1. He claims partial obedience to God’s command, v20.  ‘I did nearly everything I was told to do.’  Chester comments: ‘How easy it is to excuse sin on the basis that we have not sinned in other ways!’
2. He blames others, v15, 21.  ‘It wasn’t me; it was them.’
3. He rationalises his actions, v15.  ‘Why let all that good stuff go to waste?’
4. He pleads honourable motives, v21.  ‘I know it was wrong, but we did it for good reasons.’  Chester: ‘God does not need us to break his laws in order for his will to be done.’
5. He was afraid of the people, v24.  ‘My reputation would have been ruined.’  Chester: ‘Fear of people is a common underlying reason for sin. We fear the rejection of other people or we crave their acceptance. We will do whatever it takes to fit in, be accepted or be affirmed by them; even if in doing so we put ourselves in a position where all we deserve from God is exclusion, rejection and condemnation.’  See Mt 10:28.

Chester adds that we not only offer up such excuses ourselves, but also, in pastoral counseling, offer them to others:

‘Don’t worry about it, we might say. You’re a good person most of the time or Everyone else does it or Your motives were good or You were doing your best or You are tired … ill … under a lot of pressure at the moment.’

True repentance means

1. Not making excuses.
2. Returning to God.
3. A new commitment to obedience, (cf. 2 Cor 7:10–13).

Samuel Puts Agag to Death, 32-35

15:32 Then Samuel said, “Bring me King Agag of the Amalekites.” So Agag came to him trembling, thinking to himself, “Surely death is bitter!” 15:33 Samuel said, “Just as your sword left women childless, so your mother will be the most bereaved among women!” Then Samuel hacked Agag to pieces there in Gilgal before the LORD.

Agag came to him trembling – Some translate: ‘Agag came to him in a lordly manner.’

“Surely death is bitter!” – Some translate: “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”

Firth notes:

‘That this did not remove all the Amalekites, or even Agag’s descendants, is clear from Esther’s treatment of Haman, a descendant of Agag (Esth 3:1), while hinting Mordecai may be of Saul’s family (Esth 2:5).’

The NT counterpart:

‘The NT counterpart to such a story is the spiritual battle Paul speaks about (Eph. 6:10–18). Paul advises constant alertness, because greed, lies and disobedience are dangers to God’s people in every age.’ (NBC)

Samuel hacked Agag to pieces there in Gilgal before the LORD – ‘The execution, as part of the liturgy of holy war, took place in the sanctuary before Yahweh.’ (Klein)

The text does not make clear whether we should regard this is simply a correction of Saul’s oversight (in failing to destroy everything and everyone) or as an reprehensible act.  Chapman inclines to the latter view:

‘Samuel’s hewing of Agag “before the Lord”…indicates that the killing is done at the worship site in Gilgal, perhaps even at the altar. If Saul was criticized for neglecting to bring worship into battle, perhaps Samuel is now depicted as making the opposite mistake by bringing battle into worship. To the extent that Saul’s mission against the Amalekites was a test, there is no real reason for Samuel to follow through where Saul had left off, other than being overly rigid.’

15:34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, while Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul. 15:35 Until the day he died Samuel did not see Saul again. Samuel did, however, mourn for Saul, but the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Samuel did, however, mourn for Saul –

The Lord regretted that he had made Saul over Israel – Commentators and theologians expend much energy in trying to reconcile this with v29 (“The Preeminent One of Israel does not go back on his word or change his mind, for he is not a human being who changes his mind”).  In fact, this is something of a proof text for open theists:

‘John Sanders says this passage proves “that the future is in some respects an indefinite event for God. . . . God is not following a blueprint in working with us.” Gregory Boyd writes that God’s regret proves that God was not sovereign over Saul’s choices. He writes, “Common sense tells us that we can only regret a decision we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than what we expected.”’ (Phillips)

(On Boyd’s view of this text, see here.)

Phillips cites Bruce Ware, who argues that such statements:

• do not suggest any change in God’s nature or will, but rather a change in his response to an altered situation.
• do indicate that even though God knows the future perfectly, this does not preclude him from experiencing real sorrow (and real delight) in the doings of his creatures.  God is not flustered by the unexpected, but he does grieve over sin in all its forms.
• are intended to elicit a response from readers and hearers.  He demands heart-obedience to his word.  Such obedience is pleasing in his sight; disobedience is grievous to him.