Text -- 1 Samuel 15:23 (NET)

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.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: 1Sa 15:23

Disobedience to God's command.

Wesley: 1Sa 15:23

Contumacy in sin, justifying it, and pleading for it.

Wesley: 1Sa 15:23

Or, the iniquity of idolatry.

Wesley: 1Sa 15:23

Hath pronounced the sentence of rejection: for that he was not actually deposed by God before, plainly appears, because not only the people, but even David, after this, owned him as king. Those are unworthy to rule over men, who are not willing that God should rule over them.

Clarke: 1Sa 15:23

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry - This is no translation of those difficult words, כי חטאת קסם מרי ואון ותרפים הפצר ki chattath kesem meri veaven utheraphim haphtsar . It appears to me that the three nouns which occur first in the text refer each to the three last in order. Thus, חטאת chattath , Transgression, refers to און aven , Iniquity, which is the principle whence transgression springs. קסם kesem , Divination, refers to תרפים teraphim , consecrated images or telesms, vulgarly talismans, used in incantations. And מרי meri , Rebellion, refers evidently to הפצר haphstar , Stubbornness, whence rebellion springs. The meaning therefore of this difficult place may be the following: As transgression comes from iniquity, divination from teraphim, and rebellion from stubbornness, so, because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king. All the versions are different.

TSK: 1Sa 15:23

rebellion : 1Sa 12:14, 1Sa 12:15; Num 14:9; Deu 9:7, Deu 9:24; Jos 22:16-19; Job 34:37; Psa 107:11; Jer 28:16, Jer 29:32; Eze 2:5-8

witchcraft : Heb. divination, Exo 22:18; Lev 20:6, Lev 20:27; Deu 18:10, Deu 18:11; Isa 8:19, Isa 19:3; Rev 22:15

stubbornness : 2Co 6:16; Gal 5:20; Rev 21:8

thou hast rejected : 1Sa 2:30, 1Sa 13:14, 1Sa 16:1; 2Ki 17:15-20; 1Ch 28:9

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Sa 15:23

The meaning is "Rebellion is as bad as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as bad as worshipping false gods (iniquity), and teraphim (idolatry)."

Poole: 1Sa 15:23

Rebellion i.e. disobedience to God’ s express precept, which was Saul’ s case.

Is as the sin of witchcraft is, though not so great, yet as inexcusable and impudent a sin as witchcraft; as plainly condemned, and as certainly destructive and damnable.

Stubbornness either wilful and presumptuous sin, whereby a man violently breaks loose from God’ s command, and resists his authority; or rather, perseverance or contumacy in sin, justifying it, and pleading for it, which was Saul’ s present crime.

Is as iniquity and idolatry or, the iniquity of idolatry ; this being an hendiadis ; as judgment and justice , Deu 16:18 , is put for the judgment of justice , or just judgment . Or, idolatry , (for so the Hebrew word aven signifies, as Jer 10:15 Hos 4:15 10:5 , compared with 1Ki 12:29 ) even the teraphim , which is here mentioned as one of the worst kinds of idolatry.

Hath also rejected thee from being king i.e. hath pronounced the sentence of rejection; for that he was not actually rejected or deposed by God plainly appears, because not only the people, but even David, after this, owned him as king; and Samuel, at Saul’ s desire, did honour him, i.e. own him as king, before the people, 1Sa 15:30 .

Haydock: 1Sa 15:23

Obey. Hebrew, "Rebellion is the sin of divination or witchcraft, and resistance is iniquity, and the Theraphim." Symmachus, "the injustice of idols." Theraphim here designate idolatrous representations, Genesis xxxi. 19. They were probably of Chaldean origin, in honour of the sun and fire, (Calmet) and were venerated like the Penates, and supposed to be the sources of prosperity, from the Arabic Taraph, "to give abundance." Hence Laban was so solicitous to recover what Rachel had taken away. (Louis de Dieu) ---

By sacrifices we give our goods, or another's flesh is immolated; (Mor. xxxiii. 10.; Du Hamel) by obedience, we give ourselves to God. (St. Gregory) (Worthington)

Gill: 1Sa 15:23

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,.... Or divination ^e, in whatsoever way it was exercised; for there were various sorts of it among the Heathens, and all condemned by the law of God, Deu 18:10. Now rebellion against God, or disobeying his commands, though in things otherwise, were they not forbidden by him, lawful to be done, is as heinous a sin as to be guilty of witchcraft, or any kind of divination forbidden by the law of God, and deserves as sore a punishment:

and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry: for a man, when he has committed a sin, to persist in it obstinately, or to vindicate himself in it, and insist on his innocence, which was Saul's case, is as hateful to God as any iniquity whatever; yea, as bad as idolatry, or making use of the teraphim, as is the word here; of which see Hos 3:4 than which nothing is more abominable to the Lord:

because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord; disregarded his command, treated it with contempt and abhorrence:

he hath rejected thee from being king; not actually, for he continued to exercise kingly power and authority to his death, and was treated as a king by his subjects, and even by David, though anointed by the Lord; but the sentence of rejection was pronounced upon him, and the bestowal of the government on his posterity was cut off.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Sa 15:23

¹ tn Or “from [being].”

Geneva Bible: 1Sa 15:23

For ^{( i )} rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from [being] king.

^{( i )} God hates nothing more than the disobedience of his commandment, even though the intent seems good to man.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Sa 15:1-35

1 Samuel sends Saul to destroy Amalek.

6 Saul favours the Kenites.

7 He spares Agag and the best of the spoil.

10 Samuel denounces unto Saul God's rejection of him for his disobedience.

24 Saul's humiliation.

32 Samuel kills Agag.

34 Samuel and Saul part.

Maclaren: 1Sa 15:10-23

1 Samuel 15:10-23

Again the narrative takes us to Gilgal,--a fateful place for Saul. There they made Saul king before the Lord'; there he had taken the first step on his dark way of gloomy, proud self-will, down which he was destined to plunge so far and fatally. There he had, in consequence, received the message of the transference of the kingdom from his house, though not from himself. Now, flushed with his victory over Amalek, he has come there with his troops, laden with spoil. They had made a swift march from the south where Amalek dwelt, passing by Nabal's Carmel, where they had put up some sort of monument of their exploit in a temper of vain-glory, very unlike the spirit which reared the stone of help at Eben-ezer; and apparently they put-pose sacrifices and a feast. But Samuel comes into camp with no look of congratulation. Probably the vigorous old man had walked that day from his home, some fifteen miles off, and on the way seems to have picked up tidings of Saul's victory and position, which ought to have reached him from the king himself, and would have done so if Saul's conscience had been clear. The omission to tell him was studied neglect, which revealed much.

Samuel had cried unto the Lord all night,' if perchance the terrible sentence might be reversed; and his cries had not been in vain, for they had brought him into complete submission, and had nerved him to do his work calmly, without a quiver or a pang of personal feeling, as becomes God's prophet.

I. We Must Go Back A Step Beyond This Passage To Understand It.

Note, first, the command which was disobeyed. The campaign against Amalek was undertaken by express divine direction through Samuel's lips. It was the delayed fulfillment of a sentence passed in the times of the Conquest, bat not executed then. The terrible old usage's of that period are brought into play again, and the whole nation with its possessions is devoted.' The word explains the dreadful usage. There are two kinds of devotion to God: that of willing, and that of unwilling, men; the one brings life, the other, death. The massacre of the foul nations of Canaan was thereby made a direct divine judgment, and removed wholly from the region of ferocious warfare. No doubt, the whole plane of morals in the earlier revelation is lower than that of the New Testament. If Jesus has not taught a higher law than was given to them of old time,' one large part of His gift to men disappears. The wholesale destruction of babe and suckling' with the guilty makes us shudder; and we are meant to feel the difference between the atmosphere of that time and ours. But we are not meant to question the reality of the divine command, nor His right to give it. He slays, and makes alive. His judgments strike the innocent with the guilty. In many a case, and often, the sin is one generation's, and the bitter fruit another's. The destruction of Canaanites and Amalekites does not change its nature because God used men to do it; and the question is not whether the Israelites were fiercely barbarous in their warfare, but whether God has the right of life and death. We grant all the dreadfulness, and joyfully admit the distance between such acts and Jesus Christ; but we recognize them as not incongruous with the whole revealed character of the God who is justice as well as love, as parallel in substance, though different in instrument, with many of His dealings with men,-as the execution of righteous sentence on rank corruption, and as sweetening the world by its removal. Most of the difficulty and repugnance has been caused by forgetting that Israel was but the sword, while the hand was God's.

II. Note The Disobedience. Partial Obedience Is Complete Disobedience.

Saul and his men obeyed as far as suited them; that is to say, they did not obey God at all, but their own inclinations, both in sparing the good and in destroying the worthless. What was not worth carrying off they destroyed,--not because of the command, but to save trouble. This one fault seems but a small thing to entail the loss of a kingdom. But is it so? It was obviously not an isolated act on Saul's part, but indicated his growing impatience of the divine control, exercised on him through Samuel. He was in a difficult position. He owed his kingdom to the prophet; and the very condition on which he held it was that of submission to Samuel's authority. No wonder that his elevation quickened the growth of his masterfulness and gloomy, impetuous self-will,--traits in his character which showed themselves very early in his reign! No wonder either that such a kit g, held in leading-strings by a prophet, should chafe! The more insignificant the act in itself, the more significant it may be as a flag of revolt. Disobedience which will not do a little thing is great disobedience. Nor was this the first time that Saul had kicked,' like another Saul, against the pricks.' Gilgal had seen a previous instance of his impetuous self-assertion, masked by apparent deference; and the inference is fair that the interval between the two pieces of rebellion had been of a piece with them. Trivial acts, especially when repeated, show deep-seated evil. There may be only a coil of the snake visible, but that betrays the presence of the slimy folds, though they are covered from sight among the leaves. The tiny shoot of a plant, peeping above the ground, does not augur that the roots are short; they may run for yards. Nor can any act be called small, of which the motive is disregard of God's plain command: He that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.' Saul had never much religion. He had never heard of Samuel till that day when he came to consult him about the asses. It was a wonder to his acquaintances to find him among the prophets'; and all his acts of worship have about them a smack of self, and an exclusive regard to the mere externals of sacrifice, which imply a shallow notion of religion and a spirit unsubdued by its deeper influences.

Such a man habitually acts in disregard of God's will; and that is great sin, though it be manifested in small acts. It is to be remembered, too, that the excepting of the best of the spoil from the general destruction, changed the whole character of the transaction, and brought it down from the level of a solemn act of divine justice, of which Saul and his army were the executors by divine mandate, to that of a mere cattle-lifting foray, in which they were but thieves for their own gain. The mingling of personal advantage with any sort of service of God, ruins the whole, and turns it into mere selfishness. Samuel, inverse 19, puts the two sides of this evil in the sight of the Lord,' as being disobedience and swooping down on the booty, like some bird of prey.

III. Note Saul's Excuses.

Throughout the whole interview he plays a sorry part, and is evidently cowed by the hated authority and personality of the old man; while Samuel, on his side, is curt, stern, and takes the upper hand, as becomes God's messenger. The relative positions of the two men are the normal ones of their offices, and explain both Saul's revolt and the chronic impatience of kings at the interference of prophets. Here we have Saul coming to meet Samuel with affected heartiness and welcome, and with the bold lie, ! have performed the commandment of the Lord.' That is more than true obedience is quick to say. If Saul had done it, he would have been slower to boast of it. Those vessels yield the most sound that have the least liquor.' He doth protest too much'; and the protestation comes from an uneasy conscience. Or did he, like a great many other men who have no deep sense of the sanctity of every jot and tittle of a divine law, please himself with the notion that it was enough to keep it approximately, in the spirit' of the precept, without slavish obedience to the letter'? In a later part of the interview (1 Samuel 15:20) he insists that he has obeyed, and tries to prove it by dwelling on the points in which he did so, and gliding lightly over the others.

Samuel had reason to believe the sheep and oxen above Saul'; and there is a tone of almost contempt for the shuffling liar in his quiet question: What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?' There was no answering that; so Saul shifts his ground without a blush or a moment's hesitation. The people spared.' It is a new character for him to appear in,--that of a weak ruler who cannot keep his unruly men in order! Had he tried to restrain them? If he had, and had failed, he was not fit to be a king. If he had not, he was a coward to shift the blame on to them. How ready men are to vilify themselves in some other direction, in order to escape the consciousness of sin, which God is seeking to force home on them! No doubt the people were very willing to have a finger in the affair; but so was he. And if the cattle was their share, Agag, who could be held to ransom, was his; and the arrangement suited all round. As to the purpose of sacrificing at Gilgal, perhaps that was true; but if it were, no doubt the same process of selection, which had destroyed the worthless and kept the best, would have been repeated; and the net result would have been a sacrifice of the least valuable, and' the survival of the fittest' in many a pasture and stall

But note Saul's attitude towards Jehovah, betrayed by him in that one word: the Lord thy God.' No wonder that he had been content with a partial and perfunctory obedience, if he had no closer sense of connection with God than that I There is almost a sneer in it, too, as if he had said, What needs all this fuss about saving the cattle? You should be pleased; for this Jehovah, with whom you profess to have special communication, will be honored with sacrifice, and you will share in the feast.' If the words do not mean abjuring Jehovah, they go very near it, and, at all events, betray the shallowness of Saul's religion. Samuel, in his answer, reminds him of his early modesty and self-distrust, and of the source of his elevation. He then sweeps away the flimsy cobwebs of excuses, by the curt repetition of the plain, dreadful terms of Saul's commission, and then flashes out the piercing question, like a sword, Wherefore then didst thou not?' The reminder of past benefits, and the reiteration of the plain injunctions which have been broken, are the way to cut through the poor palliation's which men wrap around their sins.

It speaks of a very obstinate and gloomy determination that, in answer, Saul should reiterate his protestation of having done as he was bid. He doggedly says over again all that he had said before, unmoved by the prophet's solemn words. He is steeling his heart against reproof; and there is only one end to that. Sin unacknowledged, after God has disclosed it, is doubly sin. The heart that answers the touch of God's rebukes by sullenly closing more tightly on its evil, is preparing itself for the blow of the hammer which will crush it. He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.' Let us beware of meeting God's prophet with shuffling lies about our obedience, and of opposing to the words which are loving though they pierce, the Armour of impenetrable self-righteousness and conceit.

IV. Note The Punishment.

To the vain talk about honoring God by sacrifice, Samuel opposes the great principle which was the special message committed to every prophet in Israel, and which was repeated all through its history, side by side with the divinely appointed sacrificial system. In the intensity of his spiritual emotion, Samuel speaks in lyric strains, in the measured parallelism which was the Hebrew dress of poetry, and gives forth in words which will live for ever' the great truth that God delights in obedience more than in sacrifice. Whilst, on the one hand, he lifts the surrender of the will, and the consequent submission of the life, high above all mere ritual, on the other hand, by the same process, he sinks the rebellion of the will and the stubbornness of the nature, unsubdued either by kindness or threats, as Saul was showing his to be, to the level of actual idolatry.

Rebellion is divination, and stubbornness is idols and teraphim.'

Then comes the stern sentence of rejection. Why was Saul thus irrevocably set aside? Was it not a harsh punishment for such a crime? As we have already remarked, Saul's act is not to be judged as an isolated deed, but as the outcome of a deep tendency in him, which meant revolt from God. It was not because of the single act, but because of that which it showed him to be, that he was set aside. The sentence is pronounced, not because thou didst spare Amalek,' but because thou didst reject the word of the Lord.' Further, it is to be remembered that the punishment was but the carrying out of his act. His own hand had cut the bond between him and God, and had disqualified himself for the office which he filled. Saul had said, I will reign by myself.' God said, Be it so I By thyself thou shalt reign.' For the consequence of his deposition was not outward change in his royalty. David indeed was anointed but in secret, so Samuel consented to honor Saul before the people. All the external difference was that Samuel never saw him again, and he was relieved from the incubus of the prophet's interference'; that is to say, he ceased to be God's king, and became a phantom, ruling only by his own will and power, as he had wished to do. How profound may be the difference while all externals remain unchanged I When we set up ourselves as our own lords, and shake off God's rule, we cast away His sanction and help in all the deeds of our self-will, however unaltered their outward appearance may remain.

But God left him to walk in his own ways, and be filled with the fruit of his own devices,' by no irrevocable abandonment, however the decree of rejection from the kingship was irrevocable. The gates of repentance stood open for him; and the very sentence that came stern and laconic from Samuel's lips, rightly accepted, might have drawn him in true penitence to a forgiving God. His subsequent confession was rejected because it expressed no real contrition; and the worship which he proceeded to offer, without the sanction of the prophet's presence, was as unreal as his protestation of obedience, and showed how little he had learned the lesson of the great words, To obey is better than sacrifice.'

MHCC: 1Sa 15:10-23

Repentance in God is not a change of mind, as it is in us, but a change of method. The change was in Saul; " He is turned back from following me." Hereby he made God his enemy. Samuel spent a whole night in pleading for Saul. The rejection of sinners is the grief of believers: God delights not in their death, nor should we. Saul boasts to Samuel of his obedience. Thus sinners think, by justifying themselves, to escape being judged of the Lord. The noise the cattle made, like the rust of the silver, Jam 5:3, witnessed against him. Many boast of obedience to the command of God; but what means then their indulgence of the flesh, their love of the world, their angry and unkind spirit, and their neglect of holy duties, which witness against them? See of what evil covetousness is the root; and see what is the sinfulness of sin, and notice that in it which above any thing else makes it evil in the sight of the Lord; it is disobedience: " Thou didst not obey the voice of the Lord." Carnal, deceitful hearts, like Saul, think to excuse themselves from God's commandments by what pleases themselves. It is hard to convince the children of disobedience. But humble, sincere, and conscientious obedience to the will of God, is more pleasing and acceptable to him than all burnt-offering and sacrifices. God is more glorified and self more denied, by obedience than by sacrifice. It is much easier to bring a bullock or lamb to be burned upon the altar, than to bring every high thought into obedience to God, and to make our will subject to his will. Those are unfit and unworthy to rule over men, who are not willing that God should rule over them.

Matthew Henry: 1Sa 15:10-23

Saul is here called to account by Samuel concerning the execution of his commission against the Amalekites; and remarkable instances we are here furnished with of the strictness of the justice of God and the treachery and deceitfulness of the heart of man. We are here told,

I. What passed between God and Samuel, in secret, upon this occasion, 1Sa 15:10, 1Sa 15:11. 1. God determines Saul's rejection, and acquaints Samuel with it: It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king. Repentance in God is not, as it is in us, a change of his mind, but a change of his method or dispensation. He does not alter his will, but wills an alteration. The change was in Saul: He has turned back from following me; this construction God put upon the partiality of his obedience, and the prevalency of his covetousness. And hereby he did himself make God his enemy. God repented that he had given Saul the kingdom and the honour and power that belonged to it: but he never repented that he had given any man wisdom and grace, and his fear and love; these gifts and callings of God are without repentance. 2. Samuel laments and deprecates it. It grieved Samuel that Saul had forfeited God's favour, and that God had resolved to cast him off; and he cried unto the Lord all night, spent a whole night in interceding for him, that this decree might not go forth against him. When others were in their beds sleeping, he was upon his knees praying and wrestling with God. He did not thus deprecate his own exclusion from the government; nor was he secretly pleased, as many a one would have been, that Saul, who succeeded him, was so soon laid aside, but on the contrary prayed earnestly for his establishment, so far was he from desiring that woeful day. The rejection of sinners is the grief of good people; God delights not in their death, nor should we.

II. What passed between Samuel and Saul in public. Samuel, being sent of God to him with these heavy tidings, went, as Ezekiel, in bitterness of soul, to meet him, perhaps according to an appointment when Saul went forth on this expedition, for Saul had come to Gilgal (1Sa 15:12), the place where he was made king (1Sa 11:15), and were now he would have been confirmed if he had approved himself well in the trial of his obedience. But Samuel was informed that Saul had set up a triumphal arch, or some monument of his victory, at Carmel, a city in the mountains of Judah, seeking his own honour more than the honour of God, for he set up this place (or hand, as the word is) for himself (he had more need to have been repenting of his sin and making his peace with God than boasting of his victory), and also that he had marched in great state to Gilgal, for this seems to be intimated in the manner of expression: He has gone about, and passed on, and gone down, with a great deal of pomp and parade. There Samuel gave him the meeting, and,

1. Saul makes his boast to Samuel of his obedience, because that was the thing by which he was now to signalize himself (1Sa 15:13): " Blessed be thou of the Lord, for thou sendest me upon a good errand, in which I have had great success, and I have performed the commandment of the Lord. "It is very likely, if his conscience had now flown in his face at this time and charged him with disobedience, he would not have been so forward to proclaim his disobedience; for by this he hoped to prevent Samuel's reproving him. Thus sinners think, by justifying themselves, to escape being judged of the Lord; whereas the only way to do that is by judging ourselves. Those that boast most of their religion may be suspected of partiality and hypocrisy in it.

2. Samuel convicts him by a plain demonstration of his disobedience. "Hast thou performed the commandment of the Lord? What means then the bleating of the sheep? "1Sa 15:14. Saul would needs have it thought than God Almighty was wonderfully beholden to him for the good service he had done; but Samuel shows him that God was so far from being a debtor to him that he had just cause of action against him, and produces for evidence the bleating of the sheep, and the lowing of the oxen, which perhaps Saul appointed to bring up the rear of his triumph, but Samuel appears to them as witnesses against him. He needed not go far to disprove his professions. The noise the cattle made (like the rust of silver, Jam 5:3) would be a witness against him. Note, It is no new thing for the plausible professions and protestations of hypocrites to be contradicted and disproved by the most plain and undeniable evidence. Many boast of their obedience to the command of God; but what mean then their indulgence of the flesh, their love of the world, their passion and uncharitableness, and their neglect of holy duties, which witness against them?

3. Saul insists upon his own justification against this charge, 1Sa 15:15. The fact he cannot deny; the sheep and oxen were brought from the Amalekites. But, (1.) It was not his fault, for the people spared them; as if they durst have done it without the express orders of Saul, when they knew it was against the express orders of Samuel. Note, Those that are willing to justify themselves are commonly very forward to condemn others, and to lay the blame upon any rather than take it to themselves. Sin is a brat that nobody cares to have laid at his doors. It is the sorry subterfuge of an impenitent heart, that will not confess its guilt, to lay the blame on those that were tempters, or partners, or only followers in it. (2.) It was with a good intention: "It was to sacrifice to the Lord thy God. He is thy God, and thou wilt not be against any thing that is done, as this is, for his honour."This was a false plea, for both Saul and the people designed their own profit in sparing the cattle. But, if it had been true, it would still have been frivolous, for God hates robbery for burnt-offering. God appointed these cattle to be sacrificed to him in the field, and therefore will give those no thanks that bring them to be sacrificed at his altar; for he will be served in his own way, and according to the rule he himself has prescribed. Nor will a good intention justify a bad action.

4. Samuel overrules, or rather overlooks, his plea, and proceeds, in God's name, to give judgment against him. He premises his authority. What he was about to say was what the Lord had said to him (1Sa 15:16), otherwise he would have been far from passing so severe a censure upon him. Those who complain that their ministers are too harsh with them should remember that, while they keep to the word of God, they are but messengers, and must say as they are bidden, and therefore be willing, as Saul himself here was, that they should say on. Samuel delivers his message faithfully. (1.) He reminds Saul of the honour of God had done him in making him king (1Sa 15:17), when he was little in his own sight. God regarded the lowness of his state and rewarded the lowliness of his spirit. Note, Those that are advanced to honour and wealth ought often to remember their mean beginnings, that they may never think highly of themselves, but always study to do great things for the God that had advanced them. (2.) He lays before him the plainness of the orders he was to execute (1Sa 15:18): The Lord sent thee on a journey; so easy was the service, and so certain the success, that it was rather to be called a journey than a war. The work was honourable, to destroy the sworn enemies of God and Israel; and had he denied himself, and set aside the consideration of his own profit so far as to have destroyed all that belonged to Amalek, he would have been no loser by it at last, nor have gone this warfare on his own charges. God would no doubt have made it up to him, so that he should have no need of spoil. And therefore, (3.) He shows him how inexcusable he was in aiming to make a profit of this expedition, and to enrich himself by it (1Sa 15:19): " Wherefore then didst thou fly upon the spoil, and convert that to thy own use which was to have been destroyed for God's honour?"See what evil the love of money is the root of; but see what is the sinfulness of sin, and that in it which above any thing else makes it evil in the sight of the Lord. It is disobedience: Thou didst not obey the voice of the Lord.

5. Saul repeats his vindication of himself, as that which, in defiance of conviction, he resolved to abide by, 1Sa 15:20, 1Sa 15:21. He denies the charge (1Sa 15:20): " Yea, I have obeyed, I have done all I should do;"for he had done all which he thought he needed to do, so much wiser was he in his own eyes than God himself. God bade him kill all, and yet he puts in among the instances of his obedience that he brought Agag alive, which he thought was as good as if he had killed him. Thus carnal deceitful hearts think to excuse themselves from God's commandments with their own equivalents. He insists upon it that he has utterly destroyed the Amalekites themselves, which was the main thing intended; but, as to the spoil, he owns it should have been utterly destroyed; so that he knew his Lord's will, and was under no mistake about the command. But he thought that would be wilful waste; the cattle of the Midianites was taken for a prey in Moses's time (Num 31:32, etc.), and why not the cattle of the Amalekites now? Better it should be prey to the Israelites than to the fowls of the air and the wild beasts; and therefore he connived at the people's carrying it away. But it was their doing and not his; and, besides, it was for sacrifice to the Lord here at Gilgal, whither they were now bringing them. See what a hard thing it is to convince the children of disobedience of their sin and to strip them of their fig-leaves.

6. Samuel gives a full answer to his apology, since he did insist upon it, 1Sa 15:22, 1Sa 15:23. He appeals to his own conscience: Has the Lord as great delight in sacrifices as in obedience? Though Saul was not a man of any great acquaintance with religion, yet he could not but know this, (1.) That nothing is so pleasing to God as obedience, no, not sacrifice and offering, and the fat of rams. See here what we should seek and aim at in all the exercises of religion, even acceptance with God, that he may delight in what we do. If God be well pleased with us and our services, we are happy, we have gained our point, but otherwise to what purpose is it? Isa 1:11. Now here we are plainly told that humble, sincere, and conscientious obedience to the will of God, is more pleasing and acceptable to him than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices. A careful conformity to moral precepts recommends us to God more than all ceremonial observances, Mic 6:6-8; Hos 6:6. Obedience is enjoyed by the eternal law of nature, but sacrifice only by a positive law. Obedience was the law of innocency, but sacrifice supposes sin come into the world, and is but a feeble attempt to take that away which obedience would have prevented. God is more glorified and self more denied by obedience than by sacrifice. It is much easier to bring a bullock or lamb to be burnt upon the altar than to bring every high thought into obedience to God and the will subject to his will. Obedience is the glory of angels (Psa 103:20), and it will be ours. (2.) That nothing is so provoking to God as disobedience, setting up our wills in competition with his. This is here called rebellion and stubbornness, and is said to be as bad as witchcraft and idolatry, 1Sa 15:23. It is as bad to set up other gods as to live in disobedience to the true God. Those that are governed by their own corrupt inclinations, in opposition to the command of God, do, in effect, consult the teraphim (as the word here is for idolatry) or the diviners. It was disobedience that made us all sinners (Rom 5:19), and this is the malignity of sin, that it is the transgression of the law, and consequently it is enmity to God, Rom 8:7. Saul was a king, but if he disobey the command of God, his royal dignity and power will not excuse him from the guilt of rebellion and stubbornness. It is not the rebellion of the people against their prince, but of a prince against God, that this text speaks of.

7. He reads his doom: in short, " Because thou has rejected the word of the Lord, hast despised it (so the Chaldee), hast made nothing of it (so the Septuagint), hast cast off the government of it, therefore he has rejected thee, despised and made nothing of thee, but cast thee off from being king. He that made thee king has determined to unmake thee again."Those are unfit and unworthy to rule over men who are not willing that God should rule over them.

Keil-Delitzsch: 1Sa 15:22-23

Without entering, therefore, into any discussion of the meaning of the ban,as Saul only wanted to cover over his own wrong-doings by giving thisturn to the affair, Samuel put a stop to any further excuses, by saying," Hath Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings as inhearkening to the voice of Jehovah? (i.e., in obedience to His word.) Behold, hearing (obeying) is better than slain-offerings, attending betterthan fat of rams ."By saying this, Samuel did not reject sacrifices asworthless; he did not say that God took no pleasure in burnt-offerings andslain-offerings, but simply compared sacrifice with obedience to thecommand of God, and pronounced the latter of greater worth than theformer. "It was as much as to say that the sum and substance of divineworship consisted in obedience, with which it should always begin, andthat sacrifices were, so to speak, simple appendices, the force and worthof which were not so great as of obedience to the precepts of God"(Calvin). But it necessarily follows that sacrifices without obedience to thecommandments of God are utterly worthless; in fact, are displeasing toGod, as Psa 50:8., Isa 1:11., Isa 66:3, Jer 6:20, and all the prophets,distinctly affirm. There was no necessity, however, to carry out this truthany further. To tear off the cloak of hypocrisy, with which Saul hoped tocover his disobedience, it was quite enough to affirm that God's firstdemand was obedience, and that observing His word was better thansacrifice; because, as the Berleb. Bible puts it, "in sacrifices a man offersonly the strange flesh of irrational animals, whereas in obedience he offershis own will, which is rational or spiritual worship"(Rom 12:8). Thisspiritual worship was shadowed forth in the sacrificial worship of the OldTestament. In the sacrificial animal the Israelite was to give up andsanctify his own person and life to the Lord. (For an examination of themeaning of the different sacrifices, see Pent . pp. 505ff., and Keil's BiblArchäol . §41ff.) But if this were the design of the sacrifices, it was clearenough that God did not desire the animal sacrifice in itself, but first andchiefly obedience to His own word. In 1Sa 15:22, טּוב is not to be connected as an adjective with זבח , "more than good sacrifice,"as the Sept. and Thenius render it; it israther to be taken as a predicate, "better than slain-offerings," and מזּבח is placed first simply for the sake of emphasis. Anycontrast between good and bad sacrifices, such as the former constructionwould introduce into the words, is not only foreign to the context, but alsoopposed to the parallelism. For אילים חלב does notmean fat rams, but the fat of rams; the fat portions taken from the ram,which were placed upon the altar in the case of the slain-offerings, and forwhich חלב is the technical expression (compare Lev 3:9, Lev 3:16, withLev 3:4, Lev 3:11, etc.). "For," continued Samuel (1Sa 15:23), "rebellion is the sin ofsoothsaying, and opposition is heathenism and idolatry." מרי and הפצר are the subjects, and synonymous in their meaning. קסם חטּאת , the sin of soothsaying, i.e., of divination inconnection with the worship of idolatrous and demoniacal powers. In the second clause idols are mentioned instead of idolatry, and comparedto resistance, but without any particle of comparison. Opposition iskeeping idols and teraphim, i.e., it is like worshipping idols and teraphim. און , nothingness, then an idol or image (vid., Isa 66:3; Hos 4:15;Hos 10:5, Hos 10:8). On the teraphim as domestic and oracular deities, see at Gen 31:19. Opposition to God is compared by Samuel to soothsaying andoracles, because idolatry was manifested in both of them. All consciousdisobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I,into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandmentof God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God. "Because thou hastrejected the word of Jehovah, He hath rejected thee, that thou mayst be nolonger king." ממּלך = מלך מהיוה (1Sa 15:26),away from being king.

Constable: 1Sa 13:1--15:35

C. Kingship Removed from Saul chs. 13-15

This section documents Saul's disobedience to the revealed will of God that resulted in his disqualification as Israel's king. Saul's failure proved to be God's instrument of discipline on the people as a whole for their demand for a king. Failure followed disregard for God's Word.

Baldwin expressed well the situation Saul faced as he began to reign.

"In relation to Samuel, it is obvious that Saul had a problem. On the one hand he owed his appointment to Samuel, but on the other hand he was taking over Samuel's position as Israel's leader. Samuel spoke frequently of the wickedness of the people in requesting a king, apparently implying that he, Saul, should not really be in office. Yet Saul had not sought to be king, and would have preferred, at least at first, to have been left in obscurity, but he had not been offered any option. Too many signs had been given that he was the person of God's appointment, and prayers for deliverance from the Ammonites had been marvelously answered. He was king by divine anointing, by God's overruling of the sacred lot, and by united popular demand. He had caught the imagination of the people, who wanted a hero, and against all odds he was expected to pass muster.

"Had he realized it, Saul could have gained much by the presence of a seasoned prophet like Samuel alongside him, ready to give guidance, instruction and, if necessary, rebuke. Above all, Samuel was an intercessor who knew the Lord's mind, and saw prayer answered. Samuel would indicate the right way, and all Saul had to do was follow. He could have leant [sic] hard on Samuel and he would have found reassurance. In the event, this was exactly what Saul could not bring himself to do."¹³¹

Saul's improper response to his predecessor, Samuel, should be a warning to all ministers whose predecessors remain on the scene after they replace them.

Constable: 1Sa 15:1-35

5. Yahweh's final rejection of Saul ch. 15

"In the short pericope 13:7b-15a obedience was the stone on which Saul stumbled; here it is the rock that crushes him."¹⁴⁷

Chapter 15 records one of the battles Saul had with the Amalekites, Israel's enemy to the south (cf. 14:48). Most scholars are sure Saul attacked the Amalekites who lived in southern Judah though some feel he attacked an enclave of them in western Samaria.¹⁴⁸ Saul did not destroy all the Amalekites at this time (27:8; 30:1; 2 Sam. 8:12). King Hezekiah completely annihilated them years later (1 Chron. 4:43).

God directed Saul through Samuel (vv. 1-3). Consequently for Saul to disobey what Samuel said was tantamount to disobeying God. Samuel reminded Saul that Yahweh was the Lord of hosts (v. 2), his commander-in-chief. Saul's mission was to annihilate the Amalekites plus their animals completely (v. 3; cf. Deut. 7:2-6; 12:2-3; 20:16-18). God had commanded Joshua to do the same to Jericho; every breathing thing was to die (Josh. 6:17-21; cf. Deut. 20:16-18). Saul was now to put the Amalekites under the ban (Heb. herem).¹⁴⁹ God had plainly commanded this destruction of the Amelakites through Moses (Exod. 17:16; Deut. 25:17-19; cf. Num. 24:20; Gen. 12:3). Thus there was no question what the will of God involved. The phrase "utterly destroy" (Heb. heherim) occurs seven times in this account (vv. 3, 8, 9 [twice], 15, 18, 20) showing that God's will was clear and that Saul's disobedience was not an oversight.

"The agent of divine judgment can be impersonal (e.g., the Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) or personal (as here), and in his sovereign purpose God often permits entire families or nations to be destroyed if their corporate representatives are willfully and incorrigibly wicked (cf. Josh 7:1, 10-13, 24-26)."¹⁵⁰

The Amalekites (v. 6) were descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:12) whereas the Kenites traced their ancestry from Midian, one of Abraham's sons by Keturah (Gen. 25:2). The Kenites had been friendly to Israel (Exod. 18:9, 10, 19; Num. 10:29-32) whereas the Amalekites had not. There may have been a treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites.¹⁵¹

Saul's criterion for what he put to death was not part of God's command but his own judgment (v. 9). Again, Saul's defective view of his role under Yahweh's sovereign rule is obvious. God had earlier revealed through Balaam that Israel's king "shall be higher than Agag" (Num. 24:7). As Achan had done, Saul misused some of what God had devoted to another purpose. Clearly Saul set his will against the orders of his Commander; he was "not willing" to destroy everything that breathed (v. 9). His obedience was selective.

The phrase "the word of the Lord came to" occurs only three times in 1 and 2 Samuel (v. 10; cf. 2 Sam. 7:4; 24:11). In all cases it refers to an important message of judgment that God sent Israel's king through a prophet. God regretted that He had made Saul king (v. 11) because of Saul's actions, not because God felt He had made a mistake in calling Saul. Saul's failure to follow God faithfully also broke Samuel's heart. The disobedience of leaders always grieves the hearts of God's faithful servants. Samuel foresaw the consequences of Saul's actions. The village of Carmel stood about 8 miles south and a little east of Hebron. The monument Saul set up honored himself, not God who gave him the victory. When Moses defeated the Amalekites, he built an altar (Exod. 17:15-16); but when Saul defeated them, he erected a stele (cf. 2 Sam. 18:18).

Consistent with his view of his own behavior Saul claimed to have obeyed God (v. 13). Nevertheless he had only been partially obedient. God views incomplete obedience as disobedience (v. 19). Rather than confessing his sin Saul sought to justify his disobedience (v. 15; cf. Gen. 3:12; Exod. 32:22-23). He believed it was for a worthy purpose. Samuel had earlier delivered a message of doom to Eli in the morning (3:15-18); now he delivered one to Saul on another morning (v. 16).

"There is in all of us an inclination to resent being told what to do; but those in positions of authority and power are all the more reluctant to acknowledge anyone else's superior authority."¹⁵²

Since Saul returned to Gilgal to offer sacrifices, it is possible that this was the site of the tabernacle (vv. 12, 15; cf. 10:8; 13:8-10). It was where the Israelites had pitched the tabernacle first in Canaan after they crossed the Jordan River in Joshua's day (Josh. 4:19). On the other hand, the Israelites offered sacrifices at places other than the tabernacle after they entered the Promised Land. We cannot say for sure that Saul went to Gilgal because the tabernacle was there.

Saul had formerly been genuinely humble. He had realistically evaluated himself before his anointing (v. 17; cf. 9:21). Yet when he became king he viewed himself as the ultimate authority in Israel. This attitude led him to disobey the Law of God. God had sent Saul on a mission (v. 18; cf. Matt. 28:19-20), which involved the total extermination of the Amalekites. The Hebrew word translated "sinners" means habitually wicked people (cf. Ps. 1:1, 5), like the Canaanites.

"That Haman the Agagite' (Esth 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5; 9:24) was an Amalekite is taken for granted by Josephus, who states that Haman's determination to destroy all the Jews in Persia was in retaliation for Israel's previous destruction of all his ancestors (Antiq. XI, 211 [vi.5])."¹⁵³

If Josephus was correct, Saul's total obedience to God would have precluded Haman's attempt to annihilate the Jews in Esther's day.

Saul persisted in calling partial obedience total obedience (v. 20). He again lay responsibility for sparing some of the spoils taken in the battle on the people (v. 21), but as king he was responsible for the people's actions. Saul sometimes took too much responsibility on himself and at other times too little. He tried to justify his actions by claiming that he did what he had done to honor God. He betrayed his lack of allegiance by referring to Yahweh as "your" God, not "our" God or "my" God, twice (cf. v. 30).

Samuel spoke what the writer recorded in verses 22 and 23 in poetic form indicating to all that God had inspired what he was saying. God frequently communicated oracles through the prophets in such exalted speech (cf. Gen. 49; Deut. 33; et al.). These classic verses prioritize total obedience and worship ritual for all time. God desires reality above ritual. Sacrificing things to God is good, but obedience is "better" because it involves sacrificing ourselves to Him. The spared animals Saul offered to God were voluntary sacrifices.

"The issue here is not a question of either/or but of both/and. Practically speaking, this means that sacrifice must be offered to the Lord on his terms, not ours."¹⁵⁴

What is the difference between obedience and sacrifice? Sacrifice is one aspect of obedience, but obedience involves more than just sacrifice. We should never think that we can compensate for our lack of obedience to some of God's will by making other sacrifices for Him. Suppose one Saturday morning a father asks his teenage son to mow the lawn for him since he has to work that Saturday and cannot do it himself. Company is coming and he wants it to look good. The son decides that his dad's car needs washing more than the grass needs cutting. Besides the boy plans to use the car on a date that night. When the father comes home, he finds that his son has not cut the grass. "I decided to wash your car instead," the boy explains. "Aren't you pleased with me?" His father replies, "I appreciate your washing the car, but that is not what I asked you to do. I would have preferred that you mow the lawn as I told you."

The failure of Israel's king to follow his Commander-in-chief's orders was much more serious than the son's disobedience in the illustration above. Departure from God's will (rebellion) presumes to control the future course of events, as divination does (v. 23). Failure to carry out God's will (insubordination) is wicked (iniquity) and puts the insubordinate person in God's place. This is a form of idolatry. God would now begin to terminate Saul's rule as Israel's king (v. 23; cf. Exod. 34:7). Previously God had told him that his kingdom (dynasty) would not endure (13:14).

"Saul's loss of kingship and kingdom are irrevocable; the rest of 1 Samuel details how in fact he does lose it all."¹⁵⁵

Saul's confession was superficial. The Hebrew word translated "transgressed" (abarti) means "overlooked." Saul only admitted that he had overlooked some small and relatively unimportant part of what God had commanded (v. 24). What God called rebellion Saul called an oversight. Saul's greater sin was putting himself in God's place. He was guilty of a kind of treason, namely, trying to usurp the ultimate authority in Israel. Samuel refused to accompany Saul because Saul had refused to accompany God (v. 26).

"Most of us like to think that however serious our disobedience, once we repent of that sin, we are forgiven and experience no real loss. The Scripture teaches that genuine repentance always meets forgiveness, but it does not teach that there are no losses. Actually, every reflective Christian knows of permanent losses that are the result of our failure to live up to God's ideals for our lives."¹⁵⁶

When Saul seized Samuel's robe, he was making an earnest appeal. The phrase "to grasp the hem" was a common idiomatic expression in Semitic languages that pictured a gesture of supplication.¹⁵⁷ Later David would cut off the hem of Saul's robe in a cave while the king slept (24:4). Since the hem of a garment identified the social status of the person who wore it,¹⁵⁸ David was symbolically picturing the transfer of royal authority from Saul to himself when he did this. When Saul tore Samuel's hem, he symbolically though unintentionally seized the prophet's authority inappropriately. Samuel interpreted his action as symbolizing the wrenching of the kingdom from Saul (cf. 1 Kings 11:29-33).

Verse 29 poses a problem in the light of other passages that say God changed His mind (e.g., Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12, 20). What did Samuel mean? I believe he meant that God is not fickle.¹⁵⁹ God does sometimes change His mind in response to the prayers of His people or when they repent (cf. Jer. 18:7-10; 1 John 1:9).¹⁶⁰ However when He determines to do something, He follows through (cf. Jer. 14:11-12). God is initially open to changing His mind about how He will deal with people, but He does not remain open forever. He is patient with people, but His patience has its limit (2 Pet. 3:9-10). God allows people time to make their choices, but then He holds them responsible for those choices.

"When God issues a decree that is plainly intended as irrevocable, as in the rejection of Saul, then, says our text, there is no possibility of that decree being rescinded (cf. Nu. 23:19)."¹⁶¹

Saul had established a long record of rebellious behavior. God knew that Saul's confession was not genuine and his repentance was not real. Saul may have thought that he could "con" God, but He could not. He behaved toward God as a manipulative child deals with his or her parents. Rather than having a heart to please God, as David did, Saul only obeyed God when he felt that it was to his advantage to do so. He wanted to maintain control and to receive the glory. Samuel reminded the king that Yahweh was the "Glory of Israel." Saul may have been bowing down in repentance in Samuel's presence, though the text does not say that, but he was standing up inside. It was that unbending resistance to God's complete will that made Saul unusable as Israel's king.

"Saul, as this chapter in particular would have us understand, was a man in contention with Yahweh in a way that David, for all his lurid sins, never was."¹⁶²

Saul's unyieldedness was an even more serious sin than David's sins of murder and adultery. God did not remove the kingship from David for his sins, but He did from Saul.

"To be king in Israel was . . . quite a different matter from being king in the countries round about. Saul did not understand this distinction, and resented Samuel's interference,' whereas David appreciated the point that the Lord his God was the focus of authority, and therefore he was willing to submit to the word of his prophet even though, in the eyes of the watching world, it must have seemed that David's own authority would thereby be weakened. Here lay the crucial distinction between Saul and David. The man after God's own heart submitted to God's word, obeyed his prophets, and found acceptance and forgiveness, despite his many glaring faults and failures. Saul obstinately clung to his rights as king, but lost his throne."¹⁶³

Perhaps Samuel consented to honor Saul by worshipping with him (vv. 30-31) because Saul was still the king. It was good that Saul wanted to honor Yahweh in the eyes of the people by worshipping Him. Perhaps Saul's sincere though shallow contrition moved Samuel to be more cooperative (cf. v. 26).¹⁶⁴ Note Saul's continuing obsession with external appearances.

Samuel proceeded to obey God, as Saul should have, by slaying Agag (vv. 32-33). The departure of Samuel and Saul to their respective hometowns pictures them going their own separate ways. They had little in common since their allegiance to Yahweh was quite different, so they saw nothing more of each other (v. 35).¹⁶⁵ Saul's attitude toward Yahweh and its resultant judgment grieved the prophet who felt, as God, sorrow over the king's fate (15:35; 16:1). God has feelings about our responses to Him. He is not a machine but a Person. God regretted that He had made Saul king because of Saul's decisions, not because God thought He had made a mistake by choosing Saul. Note that God regretted that He had made Saul king, not that He had made Saul one of His children. Saul did not lose his salvation because he failed to obey God completely, but he did lose his opportunity to serve God by ruling over God's people (cf. Prov. 25:19).¹⁶⁶

Chapters 12-15 present the negative side of Saul's character whereas chapters 8-11 emphasize Saul's positive traits. The writer structured these sections parallel to each other to make the contrast striking.

The motif of fertility continues as the major theological emphasis in this section of 1 Samuel (chs. 7-15). Samuel, the innocent and obedient servant of the Lord, won the privilege of communicating God's Word by his faithful commitment to God. Saul, the ideal Israelite who personified the hopes and ambitions of Israel, lost his privilege of leading God's people because he was unfaithful to God.

"Saul was an impetuous person who wanted to take matters into his own hands rather than trusting the Lord. He had the opposite of the proper covenant mentality. His sin was so serious that there could be no atonement for it. This is similar to Eli's sons, for whose sins no atonement was available. Their sin resulted in a change of order, from Eli to Samuel. In Saul's case the change in order was from Saul to David."¹⁶⁷

The writer recorded four more conflicts and reversals of fortune in chapters 7-15: the Philistines and Samuel (7:2-17), the Ammonites and Saul (chs. 8-11), Saul and Jonathan (12:1-14:46), and Saul and Samuel (14:47-15:35). In the first two sections God's two anointed servants, Samuel and Saul, defeated Israel's external enemies by depending on God. They both gave God the credit for their victories (7:12; 11:13-15). In the third and fourth sections, because Saul refused to obey God and to acknowledge His victory, Saul replaced the external enemies of Israel as the object of God and Samuel's anger. Jonathan became Israel's deliverer when his father failed. The son understood the spiritual significance of events to which the father was blind.

Guzik: 1Sa 15:1-35

1 Samuel 15 - God Rejects Saul as King

A. Battle against the Amalekites.

1. (1-3) A clear, radical command: destroy Amalek.

Samuel also said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

a. Samuel also said to Saul: This was a message from the spiritual leader of Israel to the political and military leader of Israel. The message was clear: punish what Amalek did to Israel . . . go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.

i. The judgment Israel was to bring against Amalek was frighteningly complete: Kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. God clearly told Samuel to tell Saul to bring a total judgment against the Amalekites.

ii. Utterly destroy: This Hebrew verb (heherim) is used seven times in this account. The idea of total, complete judgment is certainly stressed.

b. Why? What did the Amalekites do that was so bad? Samuel explained that to Saul also: how he laid wait for him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Centuries before this, the Amalekites were the first peoples to attack Israel after their escape from Egypt (Exodus 17).

i. Hundreds of years before, the LORD said He would bring this kind of judgment against Amalek: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." And Moses built an altar and called its name, The-LORD-Is-My-Banner; for he said, "Because the LORD has sworn: the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17:14-16)

ii. Deuteronomy 25:17-19 repeats the point: Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore, it shall be, when the LORD your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.

iii. The Amalekites committed a terrible sin against Israel. When the nation was weak and vulnerable, the Amalekites attacked the weakest and most vulnerable of the nation (attacked your rear ranks, all the strangers at your rear, when you were tired and weary). They did this with no provocation, no reason except violence and greed. God hates it when the strong take cruel advantage over the weak, especially when the weak are His people. So God promised to bring judgment against the Amalekites.

iv. But all this had happened more than four hundred years before! Why did God hold it against the Amalekites? This shows us an important principle: time does not erase sin before God. Before man, time should erase sin. The years should make us forgiving to one another. But before God, time cannot atone for sin. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can erase sin, not time. In fact, the time was time that the Amalekites were mercifully given opportunity to repent. And they did not repent! The hundreds of years of hardened unrepentant hearts made them more guilty, not less guilty! "Though it be four hundred years since, and I may seem to have forgotten it. It is ill angering the Ancient of Days; his forbearance is no quittance." (Trapp)

v. "Nothing could justify such an exterminating decree but the absolute authority of God. This was given: all the reasons of it we do not know; but this we know well, The Judge of all the earth doth right. This war was not for plunder, for God commanded that all the property as well as the people should be destroyed." (Clarke)

c. If God wanted to judge the Amalekites, why didn't He just do it Himself? He complete destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah without any help from man. Why not just do the same here?

i. But God had a special purpose in this for His special nation, Israel. He wanted it to be a test of obedience for Saul, and all of Israel. Plus, since Amalek's sin against Israel was a military attack, God wanted to make the judgment fit the sin.

d. Would God call His people today to fight such a war of judgment? Many today are afraid that this is the real agenda of the "religious right," and they imagine that they want to rule the world according to the Bible, and at the end of a gun. But God has a completely different call for Christians under the New Covenant than He did for Israel under the Old Covenant.

i. Jesus made it clear that He was establishing a spiritual kingdom, not a political or a military kingdom. Jesus said in John 18:36: My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here. Paul made it clear that the enemies of the church were not material, but spiritual: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12) Through the centuries, whenever the church has tried to rule the world politically or militarily, it has run into enormous trouble. We want to win the world for Jesus Christ, but we want to do it through the influence of individual lives, transformed one at a time by the spiritual power of Jesus Christ.

e. Though God no longer calls His people to take up arms as instruments of His judgment, it does not mean that God has stopped judging the nations. "But we cannot suppose, for a single moment, that the judgment of the nations is to be altogether relegated to that final day. Throughout the history of the world the nations have been standing before Christ's bar. Nineveh stood there, Babylon stood there, Greece and Rome stood there, Spain and France stood there, and Great Britain is standing there to-day. One after another has had the solemn word - depart, and they have passed into a destruction which has been absolute and terrible." (Meyer)

2. (4-6) Saul prepares for the attack on the Amalekites.

So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah. And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley. Then Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

a. So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them: Saul was certainly a capable military leader. He shows he has the ability to gather and organize a large army. He also knew how to time his attack properly; he lay in wait in the valley.

b. Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart": Here, Saul shows wisdom and mercy in letting the Kenites go. God's judgment was not upon them, so he did not want to destroy them with the Amalekites.

i. "And when the Kenites pack up their fardles, it is time to expect judgment." (John Trapp. According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary, a fardle is "A bundle or little pack.")

ii. The Kenites "were the posterity of Jethro (Judges 1:6), who, thought he went not with Israel, yet some of his children did, and were helpful." (Trapp)

3. (7-9) Saul attacks the Amalekites.

And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt. He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

a. Saul attacked the Amalekites: This was good, and in obedience to the LORD. But it was a selective, incomplete obedience. First, Saul took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. God commanded Saul to bring His judgment on all the people, including the king.

i. Whey did Saul take Agag king of the Amalekites alive? "Saul spared Agag, either out of a foolish pit for the goodliness of his person, which Josephus notes; or for his respect to his royal majesty, in the preservation of which he thought himself concerned; or for the glory of his triumph." (Poole)

ii. "If Saul spare Agag, the people will take liberty to spare the best of the spoil . . . the sins of the great command imitation." (Trapp)

b. As well, Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. God had clearly commanded in 1 Samuel 15:3, that every ox and sheep, camel and donkey was to be destroyed also, and Saul didn't do this.

i. In a normal war in the ancient world, armies were freely permitted to plunder their conquered foes. This is how the army was often paid. Why was it wrong here? It was wrong for anyone in Israel to benefit from the war against the Amalekites, because it was an appointed judgment from God. This was just as wrong if a hangman were to empty the pockets of the man he has just executed for murder.

c. As well, they were careful to keep the best for themselves, but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed. They took the care to make sure that they took home the best, and we can imagine they were all pleased with what they had gained after the battle.

i. This perhaps was worst of all, because Israel was not reflecting God's heart in His judgment. When they came home happy and excited because of what they gained from the battle, they implied there was something joyful or happy in the midst of God's judgment. This dishonored God, who brings His judgment reluctantly and without pleasure, longing that men would have repented instead.

ii. "Partial obedience is complete disobedience. Saul and his men obeyed as far as suited them; that is to say, they did not obey God at all, but their own inclinations, both in sparing the good and destroying the worthless. What was not worth carrying off was destroyed, - not because of the command, but to save trouble." (Maclaren)

iii. "We are prepared to obey the Divine commands up to a certain point, and there we stay. Just as soon as 'the best and choicest' begin to be touched, we draw the line and refuse further compliance. We listen to soft voices that bid us to stay our hand, when our Isaac is on the altar." (Meyer)

iv. "But an even deeper reading of this story is permissible. Throughout the Bible Amalek stands for the flesh, having sprung from the stock of Esau, who, for a morsel of meat, steaming fragrantly in the air, sold his birthright. To spare the best of Amalek is surely equivalent to sparing some root of evil, some plausible indulgence, some favourite sin. For us, Agag must stand for that evil propensity, which exists in all of us, for self-gratification; and to spare Agag is to be merciful to ourselves, to exonerate and palliate our failures, and to condone our besetting sin." (Meyer)

4. (10-11) God's word to Samuel.

Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, "I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments." And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night.

a. I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king: God's heart was broken over Saul's disobedience. The man who started out humble and submissive to God was now boldly going his own way in disobedience to God.

i. How can God say, "I greatly regret"? Does this mean that God did not know what would happen? That God wanted things to happen a certain way, but was powerless to make them come to pass? Not at all. This is the use of anthropomorphism, when God explains Himself to man in human terms, so man can have some understanding of God's heart. God knew from the beginning Saul's heart, and Saul's ways, and Saul's destiny. He knew that He had already sought for Himself a man after His own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). Yet, as all this unfolded, God's heart was not emotionless. He didn't sit in heaven with a clipboard, checking off boxes, coldly saying, "All according to plan." Saul's disobedience hurt God, and since we couldn't understand what was really happening in God's heart, the closest that we could come is for God to express it in the human terms of saying, "I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king."

ii. "Repentance properly notes grief of heart, and change of counsels, and therefore cannot be in God, who is unchangeable, most wise, and most blessed; but it is ascribed to God in such cases, when men give God cause to repent, and when God alters his course and method of dealing, and treats a person as if he did indeed repent of all the kindness he had showed to him." (Poole)

iii. "God's repentance is not a change of his will, but of his work. Repentance with man, is the changing of his will; repentance with God, is the willing of a change." (Trapp)

b. And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night: Samuel shows that he has God's heart. It hurt God to reject Saul, and it hurt God's prophet to see him rejected. We are close to God's heart when the things that grieve Him grieve us, and the things that please God please us.

5. (12-13) Saul greets Samuel.

So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, "Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal." Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, "Blessed are you of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD."

<15_12.bmp>

a. So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul: Reluctantly, Samuel (who had anointed Saul as king years before) now comes to discipline the disobedient king.

b. Was Saul grieved over his sin? Not at all. Instead, he set up a monument for himself. Saul was quite pleased with himself! He felt he had done something good, and he believed he was totally justified in what he had done. There is not the slightest bit of shame or guilt in Saul, even though he had directly disobeyed the LORD.

i. In coming chapters, God will raise up another man to replace Saul as king. David, in contrast to Saul, was known as a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). Even thought David, as king of Israel, would also disobey God, the difference between him and Saul was great. David felt the guilt and shame one should feel when they sin. Saul didn't feel it. His conscience was dead to shame and his heart was dead to God. Saul's heart was so dead he could directly disobey God and set up a monument for himself on the occasion!

c. He set up a monument for himself also shows that Saul is not the same humble man who once had a humble opinion of himself (1 Samuel 9:21) and who once hid among the equipment out of shyness (1 Samuel 10:22). The years, the military victories, and prestige of the throne of Israel have all revealed the pride in Saul's heart.

i. "But the truth is, he was zealous for his own honour and interest, but lukewarm where God only was concerned." (Poole)

d. Saul said to him, "Blessed are you of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD." How could Saul do this? How could he come to the prophet of God with such boldness, such confidence, and boast of his obedience? Because of his pride, Saul is self-deceived. He probably really believed what he told Samuel. He probably believed, "I have performed the commandment of the LORD." Pride always leads us into self-deception!

i. Maclaren has an insightful comment on Saul's statement, "I have performed the commandment of the LORD." "That is more than true obedience is quick to say. If Saul had done it, he would have been slower to boast of it."

6. (14-16) Saul "explains" his sin to Samuel.

But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?" And Saul said, "They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed." Then Samuel said to Saul, "Be quiet! And I will tell you what the LORD said to me last night." And he said to him, "Speak on."

a. What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? Saul had been proud of his accomplishments. He set up a monument for himself. He could openly - and in his own mind, honestly - say "I have performed the commandment of the LORD." At the same time, the evidence of his disobedience was could be heard, even as he spoke! The livestock that God clearly commanded to be killed could be heard, seen, and even smelt even as Saul said, "I have performed the commandment of the LORD."

i. Pride and disobedience make us blind - or deaf - to our sin. What was completely obvious to Samuel was invisible to Saul. We all have blind spots of sin in our lives, and we need to constantly ask God to show them to us. We need to sincerely pray the prayer of Psalm 139:23-24: Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

ii. I heard one man say to another, "If you only knew how obvious it was to everyone else that you are in the flesh, you would be terribly embarrassed." That could be said of almost any Christian at some time or another. We need to plead with God to reveal our blind spots to us!

b. Saul's excuses are revealing. First, he blames the people, not himself (They have brought them . . . the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen). Second, he includes himself in the obedience (the rest we have utterly destroyed). Third, he justifies what he has kept because of its fine quality (the best of the sheep and the oxen). Fourth, he claims to have done it for a spiritual reason (to sacrifice to the LORD your God).

i. Of course, while all this made perfect sense to Saul (in his proud self-deception), it meant nothing to God and Samuel. In fact, it was worse than nothing - it showed that Saul was desperately trying to excuse his sin by word games and half-truths.

ii. But even in his excuse, Saul reveals the real problem: he has a poor relationship with God. Notice how he speaks of God to Samuel: "to sacrifice to the LORD your God." The LORD was not Saul's God. Saul was Saul's God. The LORD was the God of Samuel, not Saul. In his pride, Saul has removed the LORD God from the throne of his heart.

iii. "O sinners, you do miscalculate fearfully when you give to God's servants such false explanations of your sins!" (Blaikie)

c. The rest we have utterly destroyed: As it turned out, this was not even true. Saul, in fact, did not even do what he said he did. There were still Amalekites he 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 in fact a descendant of Agag! (Esther 3:1). Most ironic of all, when Saul was killed on the field of battle, the final thrust of the sword was from the hand of an Amalekite! (2 Samuel 1:8-10). When we don't obey God completely, the "left over" portion will surely come back and trouble us, if not kill us!

d. Then Samuel said to Saul, "Be quiet!" Samuel has had enough. He will listen to no more from Saul. The excuse was revealed for what it was - just a lame excuse. Now it is time for Saul to be quiet, and to listen to the word of the LORD through Samuel.

i. But even in this, Saul can't shut up. He shows his proud desire to retain some control by replying, "Speak on." As if the prophet of God Samuel needed Saul's permission! He would speak on, but not because Saul had given him permission. He would speak on because he was a messenger of God.

B. Saul is rejected as king.

1. (17-21) The charge against Saul, and his feeble defense.

So Samuel said, "When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel? Now the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.' Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD?" And Saul said to Samuel, "But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal."

a. Now the LORD sent you on a mission . . . Why did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD? This was the most apparent of Saul's sins. God had given him a specific command, and he had directly disobeyed it.

i. Though the disobedience was the most apparent sin, the root of Saul's disobedience was far worse: pride. Samuel refers to this when he remembers when things were different with Saul: When you were little in your own eyes, were you not the head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel? Now, it could no longer be said of Saul, you are little in your own eyes. He was big in his own eyes, and that made the LORD small in his eyes!

b. But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD: Saul first insists that he is innocent. But he is so self-deceived, that he can say, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD and then immediately describe how he did not obey the voice of the LORD! (Saul admits that he brought back Agag king of Amalek).

i. Saul's claim, I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites is plain evidence of the power and depth of his self-deception. First, he admits that he brought back Agag king of Amalek. There was an Amalekite right in front of him whom was not utterly destroyed! Second, the Biblical record makes it clear that Saul had not even utterly destroyed the Amalekites, because later David fought them (1 Samuel 27:8, 30:1, 2 Samuel 8:12), Esther fought them (Esther 3:1), and Saul himself was killed by an Amalekite! (2 Samuel 1:8-10) Yet, Saul can "honestly" say, "I have obeyed the voice of the LORD" and "I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites" because he is self-deceived.

ii. "He addeth obstinacy and impenitency to his crime, and justifies his fact, though he hath nothing of any moment to say but what he said before. So he gives Samuel the lie, and reflects upon him as one that had falsely accused him." (Poole)

c. But the people took of the plunder: After insisting he is innocent, Saul then blames the people for the sin. His statement is a half-truth that is a whole lie. It is true that the people took of the plunder. But they did so by following Saul's example (he spared Agag king of Amalek), and with Saul's allowance (he did nothing to stop or discourage them).

i. Saul certainly could be zealous in commanding his army when it suited him to be so. In the previous chapter, he commanded a death sentence on anyone who ate anything on the day of battle. He was willing to execute his own son in his zeal to have his command obeyed. Saul was full of fire and zeal when it came to his own will, but not when it came to the will of God.

ii. "But his crime was in consenting; had he not, the crime would have been theirs alone." (Clarke)

2. (22-23) Samuel prophesies God's judgment against King Saul.

Then Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king."

a. Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. Religious observance without obedience is empty before God. The best sacrificial offering we could bring to God is a repentant heart (Psalm 51:16-17), and our bodies surrendered to His service for obedience (Romans 12:1).

i. One could make a thousand sacrifices unto God; work a thousand hours for God's service; or give millions of dollars to His work. But all of those sacrifices mean little if there is not a surrendered heart to God, shown by simple obedience.

ii. In sacrifice we offer the flesh of another creature; in obedience we offer our own will before God. Luther used to say, "I had rather be obedient, than able to work miracles." (Cited in Trapp)

iii. "In sacrifices a man offers only the strange flesh of irrational animals, whereas in obedience he offers his own will, which is rational or spiritual worship." (Keil and Delitszch)

b. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry: A rebellious, stubborn heart rejects God just as certainly as someone rejects God by occult practices or idolatry.

i. Saul's problem wasn't just that he neglected some ceremony. That is how Saul thought of obedience to God. In today's world, he might have said, "What? So God wants me to go to church more? All right, I'll go." But religious observance was not Saul's problem; the problem was that his heart had become rebellious and stubborn against God. If religious observance was not helping that problem, then it was no good.

ii. It would have been easy for Saul to point his finger at the Amalekites or the Philistines and say, "Look at those Godless idolaters. They don't worship the true God like I do." But Saul didn't worship the true God either, because the real worship of God begins with surrender.

iii. "Though not so great, yet as inexcusable and impudent a sin as witchcraft; as plainly condemned, and as certainly destructive and damnable." (Poole)

iv. "All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god." (Keil and Delitszch)

c. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king: In his empty religious practice, rebellion, and stubbornness against God, Saul was rejecting God's word. So God rightly rejected him as king over Israel.

i. It would be easy to say, "What, Saul will be rejected as king because he spared a king and a few sheep and oxen? Later kings of Israel would do far worse, and not be rejected as king. Why is God being so tough on Saul?" But God saw Saul's heart, and saw how rebellious and stubborn it was. Saul's condition was like an iceberg: what was visible might be managable in size, but there was far more under the surface that couldn't be seen. God could see it.

ii. So Saul was rejected . . . from being king. Yet, it would be almost 25 years before there was another king enthroned in Israel. Saul's rejection was final, but it was not immediate. God needed almost 25 years to train up the right replacement for Saul!

3. (24-25) Saul's weak attempt to repent.

Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD."

a. I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words: So far, so good. Saul's statement begins like a genuine confession, reflecting a genuinely repentant heart. But that changes as he continues: because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. In this, Saul refuses to own up to his sin; instead he blames the people who "made him" do it.

i. Again, on the surface, this isn't such a bad statement of repentance. It is better than most the confessions of sin one hears today! Yet, at the same time, these were only words for Saul. His heart wasn't in them at all.

ii. "When he could deny it no longer, at length he maketh a forced and feigned confession; drawn thereto, more by the danger and damage of his sin, than by the offence; mincing and making the best of an ill matter." (Trapp)

iii. Worst of all, he tries to justify one sin with another. Because I feared the people makes that clear. "This was to excuse one sin with another. He should have trusted in God, done his duty, and not feared what man could do unto him." (Trapp) "This was the best excuse he could make for himself; but had he feared GOD more, he need have feared the PEOPLE less." (Clarke)

b. Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD: Instead of dealing with the deep issue of his heart of rebellion and stubbornness against God, Saul thinks that with a word from Samuel, everything can be fixed. But a word or two from Samuel will not change the settled nature of Saul's heart.

i. God knew Saul's heart. Not only did He know it was full of rebellion and stubbornness, but it was settled in that condition. That is something that no man could know with certainty, looking from the outside. But God knew it, and God had told Samuel the prophet this was the settled state of Saul's heart. A simple "please pardon my sin" would not do when one's heart is settled in rebellion and sin against the LORD.

4. (26-31) God's rejection of Saul as king over Israel is final.

But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel." And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent." Then he said, "I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God." So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshipped the LORD.

a. I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel: Samuel has nothing more to say on this matter, other than what the LORD has already said through him previously (1 Samuel 15:23). That was all there was to talk about.

i. Why would Samuel say, "I will not return with you" when Saul just wanted him to worship with him? Because that worship would have no doubt also included sacrifices, and sacrifices of the animals that Saul and wickedly spared from the Amalekites. "This was a politic device of Saul's that Samuel might at least seem to countenance his design, in reserving the cattle for sacrifice; which Samuel seeing, refused to do it." (Poole)

b. Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today": Saul's desperate action provides a vivid object lesson on how the kingdom was torn away from him.

i. As useless as the torn piece of robe was in his hand, so now his leadership of the nation was futile. Now he was ruling against God, not for Him. And just as much as the robe tore because Saul grasped it too tightly, so his tight grip on his pride and stubbornness meant the kingdom would be taken away from him. In this respect, Saul was the opposite of Jesus, of whom it is said He had always been God by nature, did not cling to His prerogatives as God's Equal, but stripped Himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as a mortal man (Philippians 2:6-7, J.B. Phillips translation). Jesus was willing to let go, but Saul insisted in clinging on. So Saul lost all, while Jesus gained all!

c. The Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent: Saul might have thought there was a way out of this. He was thinking of what he could do to "fix" this. Samuel let him know there was nothing he could do. This was permanent.

i. Samuel uses a title for the LORD found only here in the whole Bible: The Strength of Israel. This reminds Saul that the LORD is determined in His purpose, and is strong in His will. There will be no change.

ii. The title The Strength of Israel was also important, because at that time, Saul probably thought of himself as the strength of Israel. After all, 1 Samuel 14:47 says, So Saul established his sovereignty over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side. Saul was a mighty warrior, and it was easy for him to think, "I'm the strength of Israel." But he wasn't. The LORD God was The Strength of Israel!

d. I have sinned, yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel: Saul's desperate plea shows the depths of his pride. He is far more concerned with his image than his soul.

i. "Here he plainly discovers his hypocrisy, and the true motive of this and his former confession; he was not solicitous for the favour of God, but for his honour and power with Israel." (Poole)

e. So Samuel turned back after Saul: Why did Samuel do this? Why didn't he lead an immediate rebellion against Saul, since God had rejected him as king? Because God had not raised up Saul's replacement yet, and Saul was better than the anarchy that would come with no king.

i. "That people might not upon pretence of this sentence of rejection immediately withdraw all respect and obedience to their sovereign; whereby they would both have sinned against God, and have been as sheep without a shepherd." (Poole)

f. So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshipped the LORD: Did this do any good? It did no "good" in gaining the kingdom back for Saul. That was a decision God had made, and He made it finally. But it may have done Saul good in moving his proud, stubborn heart closer to God for the sake of saving his soul. At least it had that opportunity, so Samuel allowed Saul to come with him and worship the LORD.

5. (32-33) Samuel carries out God's will.

Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

a. Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." For Samuel, the issue is not yet resolved. There is still the matter of Saul's incomplete obedience. God's command to utterly destroy all of Amalek still stood, even if Saul had not obeyed it.

b. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." As Agag came to the old prophet, he thought, "We will let bygones be bygones. I guess this old prophet will let me go home now." The Living Bible expresses the thought well: Agag arrived all full of smiles, for he thought "surely the worst is over and I have been spared."

i. "I who have escaped death from the hands of a warlike prince in the fury of battle, shall certainly never suffer death from an old prophet in time of peace." (Poole)

c. As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women: Samuel makes it clear that Agag was not some innocent bystander when it came to the atrocities the Amalekites inflicted on Israel. Agag was the wicked, violent leader of a wicked, violent people. God's judgment against him and the Amalekites was just.

d. And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal: Samuel was a priest, and had officiated at hundreds of animal sacrifices. He knew what it was like for the blade to cut into flesh; but he had never killed another person. Now, without hesitation, this old prophet raises a sword - or probably, a large knife, because that is what Samuel would have used in sacrifices - and brings it down upon this proud, violent king. Samuel hacked Agag in pieces.

i. Notably, Samuel did it before the LORD. This was not before Saul, to show him how weak and proud he was. This was not before Israel, to show them how strong and tough Samuel was. No; this was before the LORD, in tough obedience to the LORD God. This scene must have been shockingly violent; the stomachs of those watching must have turned. Yet Samuel did it all before the LORD.

ii. "But these are no precedents for private persons to take the sword of justice into their hands; for we must live by the laws of God, and not by extraordinary examples." (Poole)

6. (34-35) The tragic split between Samuel and Saul.

Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

a. And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death: Samuel knew that it wasn't his place to see Saul. It was Saul's place to come to him in humble repentance before the LORD. If he did, it probably would not have restored the kingdom to Saul; but it could have restored his heart before God. But Saul never came to see Samuel. Ramah and Gibeah were less than ten miles apart, but they never saw each other again.

i. "But we read, chap. xix. 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." (Clarke)

ii. The next time Saul and Samuel "meet" will be a strange situation in itself! (1 Samuel 28)

b. Nevertheless, Samuel mourned for Saul: Samuel was not a cold, dispassionate messenger of God's word. He hurt for Saul. "For the hardness of his heart, and the hazard of his soul." (Trapp)

© 2001 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF SAMUEL. The two were, by the ancient Jews, conjoined so as to make one book, and in that form could be called the Book of Samuel with more propriety than now, the second being wholly occupied with the relation of transactions that did not take place till after the death of that eminent judge. Accordingly, in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, it is called the First and Second Books of Kings. The early portion of the First Book, down to the end of the twenty-fourth chapter, was probably written by Samuel; while the rest of it and the whole of the Second, are commonly ascribed to Nathan and Gad, founding the opinion on 1Ch 29:29. Commentators, however, are divided about this, some supposing that the statements in 1Sa 2:26; 1Sa 3:1, indicate the hand of the judge himself, or a contemporary; while some think, from 1Sa 6:18; 1Sa 12:5; 1Sa 27:6, that its composition must be referred to a later age. It is probable, however, that these supposed marks of an after-period were interpolations of Ezra. This uncertainty, however, as to the authorship does not affect the inspired authority of the book, which is indisputable, being quoted in the New Testament (1Sa 13:14 in Act 13:22, and 2Sa 7:14 in Heb 1:5), as well as in many of the Psalms.

JFB: 1 Samuel (Outline)

• OF ELKANAH AND HIS TWO WIVES. (1Sa 1:1-8)
• HANNAH'S PRAYER. (1Sa 1:9-18)
• SAMUEL BORN. (1Sa 1:20)
• HANNAH'S SONG IN THANKFULNESS TO GOD. (1Sa 2:1-11)
• THE SIN OF ELI'S SONS. (1Sa 2:12-17)
• SAMUEL'S MINISTRY. (1Sa 2:18-26)
• A PROPHECY AGAINST ELI'S HOUSE. (1Sa 2:27-35)
• THE LORD APPEARS TO SAMUEL IN A VISION. (1Sa 3:1-10)
• ISRAEL OVERCOME BY THE PHILISTINES. (1Sa 4:1-11)
• ELI HEARING THE TIDINGS. (1Sa 4:12-22)
• THE PHILISTINES BRING THE ARK INTO THE HOUSE OF DAGON. (1Sa 5:1-2)
• DAGON FALLS DOWN. (1Sa 5:3-5)
• THE PHILISTINES ARE SMITTEN WITH EMERODS. (1Sa 5:6-12)
• THE PHILISTINES COUNSEL HOW TO SEND BACK THE ARK. (1Sa 6:1-9)
• THE ARK AT KIRJATH-JEARIM. (1Sa 7:1-2)
• THE ISRAELITES, THROUGH SAMUEL'S INFLUENCE, SOLEMNLY REPENT AT MIZPEH. (1Sa 7:3-6)
• WHILE SAMUEL PRAYS, THE PHILISTINES ARE DISCOMFITED. (1Sa 7:7-14)
• OCCASIONED BY THE ILL-GOVERNMENT OF SAMUEL'S SONS, THE ISRAELITES ASK A KING. (1Sa. 8:1-18)
• SAUL, DESPAIRING TO FIND HIS FATHER'S ASSES, COMES TO SAMUEL. (1Sa 9:1-14)
• GOD REVEALS TO SAMUEL SAUL'S COMING, AND HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE KINGDOM. (1Sa 9:15-27)
• SAMUEL ANOINTS SAUL, AND CONFIRMS HIM BY THE PREDICTION OF THREE SIGNS. (1Sa. 10:1-27)
• NAHASH OFFERS THEM OF JABESH-GILEAD A REPROACHFUL CONDITION. (1Sa 11:1-4)
• THEY SEND TO SAUL, AND ARE DELIVERED. (1Sa 11:5-11)
• SAUL CONFIRMED KING. (1Sa 11:12-15)
• SAMUEL TESTIFIES HIS INTEGRITY. (1Sa 12:1-5)
• HE TERRIFIES THEM WITH THUNDER IN HARVEST-TIME. (1Sa 12:17-25)
• SAUL'S SELECTED BAND. (1Sa 13:1-2)
• HE CALLS THE HEBREWS TO GILGAL AGAINST THE PHILISTINES. (1Sa 13:3-4)
• THE PHILISTINES' GREAT HOST. (1Sa 13:5)
• THE ISRAELITES' DISTRESS. (1Sa 13:6-8)
• SAUL, WEARY OF WAITING FOR SAMUEL, SACRIFICES. (1Sa 13:9-16)
• JONATHAN MIRACULOUSLY SMITES THE PHILISTINES' GARRISON. (1Sa 14:1-14)
• SAUL SENT TO DESTROY AMALEK. (1Sa 15:1-6)
• HE SPARES AGAG AND THE BEST OF THE SPOIL. (1Sa 15:7-9)
• GOD REJECTS HIS FOR DISOBEDIENCE. (1Sa 15:10-11)
• SAMUEL SENT BY GOD TO BETHLEHEM. (1Sa 16:1-10)
• HE ANOINTS DAVID. (1Sa 16:11-14)
• THE ISRAELITES AND PHILISTINES BEING READY TO BATTLE. (1Sa 17:1-3)
• GOLIATH CHALLENGES A COMBAT. (1Sa 17:4-11)
• DAVID ACCEPTS THE CHALLENGE, AND SLAYS HIM. (1Sa. 17:12-58)
• JONATHAN LOVES DAVID. (1Sa 18:1-4)
• SAUL ENVIES HIS PRAISE. (1Sa 18:5-9)
• SEEKS TO KILL HIM. (1Sa 18:10-12)
• FEARS HIM FOR HIS GOOD SUCCESS. (1Sa 18:13-16)
• HE OFFERS HIM HIS DAUGHTER FOR A SNARE. (1Sa 18:17-21)
• JONATHAN DISCLOSES HIS FATHER'S PURPOSE TO KILL DAVID. (1Sa 19:1-7)
• SAUL'S MALICIOUS RAGE BREAKS OUT AGAINST DAVID. (1Sa 19:8-17)
• DAVID FLEES TO SAMUEL. (1Sa 19:18-23)
• SAUL PROPHESIES. (1Sa 19:24)
• DAVID CONSULTS WITH JONATHAN FOR HIS SAFETY. (1Sa 20:1-10)
• THEIR COVENANT RENEWED BY OATH. (1Sa 20:11-23)
• SAUL, MISSING DAVID, SEEKS TO KILL JONAHAN. (1Sa. 20:24-40)
• JONATHAN AND DAVID LOVINGLY PART. (1Sa 20:41-42)
• DAVID, AT NOB, OBTAINS OF AHIMELECH HALLOWED BREAD. (1Sa 21:1-7)
• HE TAKES GOLIATH'S SWORD. (1Sa 21:9)
• AT GATH HE FEIGNS HIMSELF MAD. (1Sa 21:10-15)
• DAVID'S KINDRED AND OTHERS RESORT TO HIM AT ADULLAM. (1Sa 22:1-8)
• DOEG ACCUSES AHIMELECH. (1Sa 22:9-16)
• SAUL COMMANDS TO KILL THE PRIESTS. (1Sa 22:17-19)
• ABIATHAR ESCAPES AND FLEES AFTER DAVID. (1Sa 22:20-23)
• DAVID RESCUES KEILAH. (1Sa 23:1-6)
• SAUL'S COMING, AND TREACHERY OF THE KEILITES. (1Sa 23:7-13)
• DAVID ESCAPES TO ZIPH. (1Sa 23:14-18)
• SAUL PURSUES HIM. (1Sa 23:19-29)
• DAVID IN A CAVE AT ENGEDI CUTS OFF SAUL'S SKIRT, BUT SPARES HIS LIFE. (1Sa 24:1-7)
• HE URGES THEREBY HIS INNOCENCY. (1Sa 24:8-15)
• SAMUEL DIES. (1Sa 25:1-9)
• THE CHURLISH ANSWER PROVOKES HIM. (1Sa 25:10-13)
• ABIGAIL PACIFIES HIM. (1Sa. 25:14-35)
• NABAL'S DEATH. (1Sa 25:36-44)
• SAUL COMES TO THE HILL OF HACHILAH AGAINST DAVID. (1Sa 26:1-4)
• DAVID STAYS ABISHAI FROM KILLING SAUL, BUT TAKES HIS SPEAR AND CRUSE. (1Sa. 26:5-25)
• SAUL HEARING THAT DAVID WAS FLED TO GATH, SEEKS NO MORE FOR HIM. (1Sa 27:1-4)
• DAVID BEGS ZIKLAG OF ACHISH. (1Sa 27:5-12)
• ACHISH'S CONFIDENCE IN DAVID. (1Sa 28:1-6)
• SAUL SEEKS A WITCH, WHO, BEING ENCOURAGED BY HIM, RAISES UP SAMUEL. (1Sa. 28:7-25)
• DAVID MARCHING WITH THE PHILISTINES TO FIGHT WITH ISRAEL. (1Sa 29:1-5)
• THE AMALEKITES SPOIL ZIKLAG. (1Sa 30:1-5)
• BUT DAVID, ENCOURAGED BY GOD, PURSUES THEM. (1Sa 30:6-15)
• AND RECOVERS HIS TWO WIVES AND ALL THE SPOIL. (1Sa. 30:16-31)
• SAUL HAVING LOST HIS ARMY AT GILBOA, AND HIS SONS BEING SLAIN, HE AND HIS ARMOR-BEARER KILL THEMSELVES. (1Sa 31:1-7)
• THE PHILISTINES TRIUMPH OVER THEIR DEAD BODIES. (1Sa 31:8-10)
• THE MEN OF JABESH-GILEAD RECOVER THE BODIES AND BURY THEM AT JABESH. (1Sa 31:11-13)

TSK: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

The First Book of SAMUEL, otherwise called " The First Book of the KINGS."

TSK: 1 Samuel 15 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Sa 15:1, Samuel sends Saul to destroy Amalek; 1Sa 15:6, Saul favours the Kenites; 1Sa 15:7, He spares Agag and the best of the spoil; 1Sa 15:10, Samuel denounces unto Saul God’s rejection of him for his disobedience; 1Sa 15:24, Saul’s humiliation; 1Sa 15:32, Samuel kills Agag; 1Sa 15:34, Samuel and Saul part.

Poole: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL OTHERWISE CALLED

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE KINGS.

THE ARGUMENT.

IT is not certainly known who was the penman of this Book, or whether it was written by one or more hands; nor is it or any great importance; for since there are sufficient evidences that God was the chief author of it, it matters not who was the instrument. As when it appears that such a thing was really an act of parliament, or of the council-table, it is not considerable who was the clerk or which was the pen that wrote it. And this is the less material in such historical hooks, wherein there is but little which concerns the foundation of faith and good life, and therefore it was not necessary to name the writer of them. It may abundantly suffice that there were in these times divers prophets and holy men of God; as Samuel, and Nathan, and Gad, and David himself, who might each of them write some part of this and the following book. But if any man will out of perverseness doubt or deny that these wrote it, yet this I suppose no discreet and impartial man will deny, that it is wholly incredible that such books should be written in their times, and recommended to the church as a part of the Holy Scriptures, and so received by the succeeding generation, without their approbation, who had so great a power and authority in the church and commonwealth of Israel.

Poole: 1 Samuel 15 (Chapter Introduction)

SAMUEL CHAPTER 15

Samuel sendeth Saul to destroy the Amalekites: his army, 1Sa 15:1-5 . He favoureth the Kenites; spareth Agag, and the best of the spoil: God rejects Saul from being king, 1Sa 15:6-11 . This Samuel declares to Saul; he commendeth, excuseth, at last humbleth himself, 1Sa 15:12:25 . Samuel is unmoved herewith; his mantle rent is a sign to Saul of his ruin: God cannot lie, 1Sa 15:26-29 . Samuel killeth Agag; goeth from Saul, and mourneth for him, 1Sa 15:30-35 .

The Lord made thee king, and therefore thou art highly obliged to serve and obey him. Thou hast committed one error already, for which God hath severely rebuked and threatened; now therefore make amends for thy former error, and regain God’ s favour by thy exact obedience to what he now commands.

MHCC: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

In this book we have an account of Eli, and the wickedness of his sons; also of Samuel, his character and actions. Then of the advancement of Saul to be the king of Israel, and his ill behaviour, until his death made way for David's succession to the throne, who was an eminent type of Christ. David's patience, modesty, constancy, persecution by open enemies and feigned friends, are a pattern and example to the church, and to every member of it. Many things in this book encourage the faith, hope, and patience of the suffering believer. It contains also many useful cautions and awful warnings.

MHCC: 1 Samuel 15 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Sa 15:1-9) Saul sent to destroy Amalek.

(1Sa 15:10-23) Saul excuses and commends himself.

(1Sa 15:24-31) Saul's imperfect humiliation.

(1Sa 15:32-35) Agag put to death, Samuel and Saul part.

Matthew Henry: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Book of Samuel

This book, and that which follows it, bear the name of Samuel in the title, not because he was the penman of them (except of so much of them as fell within his own time, to the twenty-fifth chapter of the first book, in which we have an account of his death), but because the first book begins with a large account of him, his birth and childhood, his life and government; and the rest of these two volumes that are denominated from him contains the history of the reigns of Saul and David, who were both anointed by him. And, because the history of these two kings takes up the greatest part of these books, the Vulgar latin calls them the First and Second Books of the Kings, and the two that follow the Third and Fourth, which the titles in our English Bibles take notice of with an alias: otherwise called the First Book of the Kings, etc. The Septuagint calls them the first and second Book of the Kingdoms. It is needless to contend about it, but there is no occasion to vary from the Hebrew verity. These two books contain the history of the last two of the judges, Eli and Samuel, who were not, as the rest, men of war, but priests (and so much of them is an appendix to the book of Judges), and of the first two of the kings, Saul and David, and so much of them is an entrance upon the history of the kings. They contain a considerable part of the sacred history, are sometimes referred to in the New Testament, and often in the titles of David's Psalms, which, if placed in their order, would fall in these books. It is uncertain who was the penman of them; it is probable that Samuel wrote the history of his own time, and that, after him, some of the prophets that were with David (Nathan as likely as any) continued it. This first book gives us a full account of Eli's fall and Samuel's rise and good government, ch. 1-8. Of Samuel's resignation of the government and Saul's advancement and mal-administration, ch. 9-15. The choice of David, his struggles with Saul, Saul's ruin at last, and the opening of the way for David to the throne, ch. 16-31. And these things are written for our learning.

Matthew Henry: 1 Samuel 15 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have the final rejection of Saul from being king, for his disobedience to God's command in not utterly destroying the Amalekites. By his wars and victories he hoped to magnify and perpetuate his own name and honour, but, by his mismanagement of them, he ruined himself, and laid his honour in the dust. Here is, I. The commission God gave him to destroy the Amalekites, with a command to do it utterly (1Sa 15:1-3). II. Saul's preparation for this expedition (1Sa 15:4-6). III. His success, and partial execution of this commission (1Sa 15:7-9). IV. His examination before Samuel, and sentence passed upon him, notwithstanding the many frivolous pleas he made to excuse himself (v. 10-31). V. The slaying of Agag (1Sa 15:32, 1Sa 15:33). VI. Samuel's final farewell to Saul (1Sa 15:34, 1Sa 15:35).

Constable: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

First and Second Samuel were originally one book called the Book of Samuel in the Hebrew Bible. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (made ca. 250 B.C.) was the first to divide it into two books. The Septuagint translators titled these books 1 and 2 Kingdoms. That division has persisted ever since and has even been incorporated into subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible (since A.D. 1517). The title "Samuel" was given by Jerome in his Latin translation, the Vulgate (ca. A.D. 400).

The Jews gave the name "Samuel" to it because Samuel is the first major character in the book. Samuel anointed both Saul and David, so in this respect he was superior to them both.

Date and Writer

Statements in the Book of Samuel imply that someone who had witnessed at least some of the events recorded wrote it. However the original writer must have written most of it after Samuel's death (i.e., -1 Sam. 25-2 Sam. 24) and some of it even after the division of the kingdom following Solomon's death (e.g., 1 Sam. 27:6). These features have made it difficult to date the book.

"Our guess is that the author was a high state official in frequent attendance at the court, enjoying the full confidence of David and his household, who served David throughout his reign in Jerusalem and also Solomon during the early years of his reign, and whose duties may have been connected with literary work."¹

Most conservative scholars prefer the view that Samuel may have written or been responsible for noting the record of earlier events in the book (chs. 1-24). Then some unidentifiable writer put it in its final form later, perhaps soon after Solomon's death.

Rationalistic critics of the book tend to believe it was the result of much more piecing together, and some of them date its final form as late as 500 B.C.²

Scope

The Book of Samuel covers the period of Israel's history bracketed by Samuel's conception and the end of David's reign. David turned the kingdom over to Solomon in 971 B.C.³ David reigned for 40 and one-half years (2 Sam. 2:11; 5:5). This means he came to power in 1011 B.C. Saul also reigned for 40 years (Acts 13:21) so he became king in 1051 B.C. We can estimate the date of Samuel's birth fairly certainly on the basis of chronological references in the text to have been about 1121 B.C.⁴ Thus the Book of Samuel covers about 1121-971 B.C., or about 150 years of history.

We should note that the first part of 1 Samuel overlaps historically with the end of the judges period that we find in the Book of Judges. Apparently Samson was born just a few years before Samuel. Samson's 20-year judgeship evidently began shortly before the battle of Aphek (1104 B.C.) at which time Eli died (1 Sam. 4:18). It ended not many years before the battle of Mizpah (1084 B.C.) when the Philistine domination of Israel ceased temporarily (1 Sam. 7:13). Samuel's ministry therefore probably ran concurrent with that of Samson until Samson died. Saul began to reign about 35 years after Samson died (i.e., 1051 B.C.). Samuel evidently lived about 30 years after that.⁵

Old Testament History
Events	Biblical References
Creation to Israel's move to Egypt	Genesis 1-50
The Exodus	Exodus 1-18
Israel at Mt. Sinai	Exodus 19--Numbers 10
The Wilderness Wanderings	Numbers 11-21
Israel on the Plains of Moab	Numbers 22--Joshua 2
The Conquest and Division of Canaan	Joshua 3-24
The Amphictyony	-Judges 1-1 Samuel 7
The Reign of Saul	1 Samuel 8-31; 1 Chronicles 10
The Reign of David	2 Samuel 1-24; 1 Chronicles 11-29
The Reign of Solomon	1 Kings 1-11; 2 Chronicles 1-9
The Divided Monarchy	-1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17; 2 Chronicles 10-31
The Surviving Kingdom of Judah	2 Kings 18-25; 2 Chronicles 32-36
The Return under Zerubbabel	Ezra 1-6
The Return under Ezra	Ezra 7-10
The Return under Nehemiah	Nehemiah 1-13

Message⁶

First and 2 Samuel are really one story. The translators divided them into two books for convenience, not because of subject matter.

First Samuel records Israel's transition from amphictyony to monarchy.

The key passage that explains this transition is 8:4-7. Two statements from this passage are especially significant.

The human desire that produced the transition expressed itself in verse 5: "Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." God had brought Israel into existence as a nation to be unlike all the nations (Exod. 19:5-6). The essence of its uniqueness was Yahweh's rule over it as King. God wanted Israel to be a demonstration for all the world to see how glorious it can be to live under the authority of God.

The real meaning of the people's request comes out in verse 7: ". . . they have rejected me from being king over them." During the period of the judges, religious apostasy spread and characterized Israel. The people refused to obey their King. It is this attitude that finds expression in verse 5. The people wanted to substitute the false for the true. This is the essence of sin, and it results in idolatry. Every idol is a witness to man's need of God. When people reject the true God they must put something in His place to meet that need. Human beings must have a god.

Israel turned from God as her King in 1 Samuel. She desired a king like the other nations. This book shows the immediate effects of that desire.

One of the great revelations of 1 Samuel is how from the human viewpoint God adapts to continue His reign.

This statement appears to contradict 8:7, but it does not. The people rejected Yahweh, but they did not dethrone Him. The first act is possible, the second is not. This is a major lesson of 1 Samuel. The great revelation of this book is not primarily its three central figures: Samuel, Saul, and David. It is Yahweh reigning by adapting to human situations and moving surely and steadily toward the fulfillment of His purposes. In spite of disobedience or obedience, failure or success, rebellious or loyal people, the reign of God moves on. We see this great lesson in the history of 1 Samuel's three central figures: Samuel, Saul, and David.

The writer introduced Samuel's story with his mother Hannah's experience with God. Hannah was a great woman of faith who lived in the judges period. Her faith became God's foothold for advance. Her song reveals a profound appreciation for Yahweh as the God who reigns over all (2:6-8, 10). The similarities between this prayer and Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1 are interesting and noteworthy.

Samuel was a prophet. In one sense he was the first of the prophets (Acts 3:24). Of course, Moses was a prophet and so was Abraham, but Samuel was the first of the order of prophets who mediated between God and the Israelites during the monarchy. The kings of Israel and Judah were never mediators between God and the people in the sense of speaking for God to the people. When the Israelites rejected Yahweh as their king, He withdrew from close communion and intimate fellowship with them. He never recognized their kings as standing between Himself and them to mediate His Word to the people. He chose their kings for them. He allowed their desire for a human king to work itself out in ultimate disaster through the centuries that followed. Yet He never spoke to the people through the king. He always spoke to them through the prophets. Samuel was the first of these. David, of course, was a king and a prophet. The role of the kings was to govern the people. The role of the prophets was to reveal God's will to them.

With Samuel the office of prophet in Israel emerges as that of Yahweh's authoritative representative to His people. Samuel became the king-maker finding and anointing both Saul and David. >From now on when God had a message for the people it normally did not come directly to the king but to the king and the people through the prophet. The prophet's office was always superior to that of Israel's kings. (You have the privilege of speaking for God to your generation. You have a high calling similar to that of Israel's prophets.) When Israel rejected Yahweh as her king, God chose Samuel, the child of a woman's simple faith, trained him in the tabernacle, and called him when he was only a boy. Then He gave him a message to deliver and sent him to anoint Saul as the king after the people's own heart, and David as the king after God's own heart. The prophets became God's mediators, His messengers, and the interpreters of His law. Thus Yahweh reigned though He adapted His methods of ruling by raising up the prophets. He called Samuel as the first of these mediators. During the monarchy God provided guidance through two offices rather than through one as He had done previously. The kings provided political leadership, and the prophets gave the people spiritual leadership. God had previously provided both types of leadership through single individuals namely Moses, Joshua, and the judges.

Saul's story is one of the most tragic in Scripture. It is unusually fascinating and has tremendous power in its appeal to our lives. When God placed Saul on Israel's throne He answered the prayer of His rebellious people in 8:5. God "gave them their request, but sent a wasting disease among them" (Ps. 106:15; NASB).

Saul was a revelation to the Israelites of what the possession of "a king like the nations" really meant. He had unusual physical strength, but he was fitful and he failed the people. He had mental acumen, but he was moody and eventually turned into a madman. He was sluggish and dull spiritually lacking in spiritual insight and power, and eventually he abandoned Yahweh for a witch.

His reign was also a disaster. At the beginning of his reign, Israel was virtually without a leader. At its end it was under the control of an enemy neighbor. Saul was never able to expand the borders of Israel because he never was strong enough to dominate his enemy neighbors. David on the other hand did both of these things. At the end of Saul's reign, Israel had almost destroyed itself through its wars with the Philistines.

David's story is one of the most glorious in Scripture. After Saul, God gave His people another king, but this time he was a man after God's own heart.

God prepared David for the throne by putting him through training as a shepherd in the fields, a courtier in the palace, and an "outlaw" in exile. (By "outlaw" I do not mean David was lawless but that he lived outside Saul's control.) His shepherd training prepared him to care for and protect the Israelites under his charge. His courtier experience prepared him to deal with high governmental leaders. His "outlaw" years perfected the disciplines that enabled him to become a strong ruler. These disciplines included relying on God in every situation, practicing self-restraint, and leading his people.

In all David's training God was reigning, moving forward to the fulfillment of His plans and purposes. God had previously done this by making the child of faith, Samuel, His prophet. He had also done this by making outwardly promising Saul a revelation to the nation of her sins in turning away from God.

The second great revelation of this book is that people cooperate with God by either being loyal or by being disloyal to Him.

In Samuel's case he had opportunity to glorify God because of his parentage, his call by God, and his appointment as God's prophet. He responded obediently, with loyalty to God. Consequently God's messages got delivered, and God's work moved ahead. Samuel was an instrument of blessing.

In Saul's case he had opportunity to glorify God too. His opportunity came in his call by God, his anointing by Samuel, his friendship with Samuel, his popularity with the people, and his personal abilities. He responded disobediently, with disloyalty to God as seen in his vacillating and self-will. Consequently he failed as a king, and he died under the judgment of God. His life was a failure.

In David's case his opportunities were his call, his anointing, his waiting, and his suffering. He responded obediently, with loyalty to God. Consequently he became God's instrument of progress and blessing. He was a success.

Each man had his opportunity, made his response, and experienced the consequences of his response. Two obeyed, one disobeyed. All cooperated with God in fulfilling His ultimate purposes either to his own blessing or to his own blasting.

As a result of these two major revelations I would summarize the message of 1 Samuel as follows. God will accomplish His purposes regardless of man's personal response to Him. However man's response to God's revealed will determines a person's own success or failure in life.

First Samuel teaches us the methods of the sovereign God. All territory is within God's jurisdiction, every person is under His control, and all events are in His hands. All of God's plans and purposes are moving toward accomplishment. He makes use of all antagonistic facts and forces as well as all positive facts and forces. He also makes use of all the agents He has chosen to use regardless of their responses. Paul's comments in 2 Tim. 2:20-21 are very much to the point here.

First Samuel also teaches us that God's ultimate victory is independent of the attitudes and actions of individuals and groups of people (e.g., Israel) toward Him. Nevertheless the ultimate destiny of individuals and groups of people depends on their attitudes and actions toward Him.

Samuel was obedient, was God's instrument, and experienced deliverance. Saul was disobedient, was God's instrument, and experienced destruction. David was obedient, was God's instrument, and experienced deliverance. My attitudes and actions do not determine God's ultimate victory, but they do determine my ultimate destiny. Everything depends on my choices and me regarding my earthly destiny. Nothing depends on me regarding God's ultimate victory. God uses all people, loyal and rebellious, to produce His ultimate purposes. However we determine the outcome of our lives by our attitudes and responses to Him. We see these principles working themselves out around us all the time. Dr. Walvoord is an example of a Samuel or a David in our day. The DTS graduates in prison are examples of the Sauls of our day.

Constable: 1 Samuel (Outline)

Outline

I. Eli and Samuel chs. 1-3

A. The change from barrenness to fertility 1:1-2:10

1. Hannah's condition 1:1-8

2. Hannah's vow 1:9-18

3. Hannah's obedience 1:19-28

4. Hannah's song 2:1-10

B. The contrast between Samuel and Eli's sons 2:11-36

1. Eli's sons' wickedness 2:11-17

2. Hannah's godly influence on Samuel and its effect 2:18-21

3. Eli's lack of influence on his sons and its effect 2:22-26

4. The oracle against Eli's house 2:27-36

C. God's first revelation to Samuel ch. 3

1. Samuel's call 3:1-18

2. Samuel's ministry 3:19-4:1a

II. The history of the ark of the covenant 4:1b-7:1

A. The capture of the ark 4:1b-22

1. The battle of Aphek 4:1b-11

2. The response of Eli 4:12-18

3. The response of Phinehas' wife 4:19-22

B. Pagan fertility foiled by God ch. 5

C. The ark returned to Israel by God 6:1-7:1

1. The plan to terminate God's judgment 6:1-9

2. The return of the ark to Bethshemesh 6:10-18

3. The removal of the ark to Kiriath-jearim 6:19-7:1

III. Samuel and Saul 7:2-15:35

A. Samuel's ministry as Israel's judge 7:2-17

1. Samuel's spiritual leadership 7:2-4

2. National repentance and deliverance 7:5-14

3. Samuel's regular ministry 7:15-17

B. Kingship given to Saul chs. 8-12

1. The demand for a king ch. 8

2. The anointing of Saul 9:1-10:16

3. The choice of Saul by lot 10:17-27

4. Saul's effective leadership in battle 11:1-11

5. The confirmation of Saul as king 11:12-12:25

C. Kingship removed from Saul chs. 13-15

1. Saul's disobedience at Gilgal 13:1-15

2. Saul's struggle against the Philistines 13:16-14:23

3. Saul's cursing of Jonathan 14:24-46

4. Saul's limited effectiveness in battle 14:47-52

5. Yahweh's final rejection of Saul ch. 15

IV. Saul and David 1 Sam. 16-31

A. David's rise as the new anointed 16:1-18:5

1. God's selection of David for kingship ch. 16

2. The reason for God's selection of David ch. 17

3. The results of God's selection of David ch. 18:1-19:17

B. David driven out by Saul 19:18-20:42

1. God's deliverance in Ramah 19:18-24

2. Jonathan's advocacy for David ch. 20

C. David in exile chs. 21-31

1. David's initial movements chs. 21-22

2. Saul's pursuit of David ch. 23

3. David's goodness to two fools ch. 24-26

4. The end of Saul's reign 27-31

(Continued in notes on 2 Samuel)

Constable: 1 Samuel

1 Samuel

Bibliography

Ackroyd, Peter R. The First Book of Samuel. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible series. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1971.

_____. "The Verb Love--'Aheb in the David-Jonathan Narratives--A Footnote." Vetus Testamentum 25:2 (April 1975):213-14.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Ahlstrom, G. W. "I Samuel 1, 15." Biblica 60:2 (1979):254.

_____. "The Travels of the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43 (1984):141-49.

Albright, William F. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "What Were the Cherubim?" Biblical Archaeologist 1:1 (1938):1-3.

"Annotated Bibliography on I Samuel." Biblical Viewpoint 14:2 (November 1980):144-49.

Ap-Thomas, D. R. "Saul's Uncle.'" Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961):241-45.

Archer, Gleason L, Jr. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Regency Reference Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Baldwin, Joyce G. 1 & 2 Samuel. Tyndale Old Testament commentaries series. Leicester, Eng., and Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Barker, Kenneth L. "The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp.131-39. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1965.

Bentzen, Aage. "The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel." Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1948):37-53.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Berlin, Adele. "Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (July 1982):69-85.

Beuken, W. A. M. "1 Samuel 28: The Prophet as Hammer of Witches.'" Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (1978):3-17.

Birch, Bruce C. "The Choosing of Saul at Mizpah." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37:4 (1975):447-54.

Blaikie, William G. The First Book of Samuel. 1887; reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1978.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "Kiriath-jearim and the Ark." Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969):143-56.

Block, Daniel Isaac. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Jackson: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988.

Boogaart, T. A. "History and Drama in the Story of David and Goliath." Reformed Review 38:3 (1985):204-14.

Brauner, Ronald A. "To Grasp the Hem' and 1 Samuel 15:27." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6 (1974):135-38.

Bright, John A. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Bruce, F. F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983.

Brueggemann, Walter. "I Samuel 1: A Sense of a Beginning," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102:1 (1990):33-48.

_____. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching series. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Campbell, Antony F. The Ark Narrative [1 Sam 4-6; 2 Sam 6]: A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975.

_____. "Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative." Journal of Biblical Literature 98:1 (1979):31-43.

Carter, Leslie. Warring Faith. London: Victory Press, 1961.

Chafin, Kenneth L. 1, 2 Samuel. The Communicator's Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Chaney, Marvin L. "Systemic Study of the Israelite Monarchy." Semeia 37 (1986):53-76.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "Does God Deceive?" Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):11-28.

_____. "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):267-83.

Claassen, W. T. "1 Sam. 3:19 - A Case of Context and Semantics." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 8 (1980):1-9.

Clark, R. E. D. "The Large Numbers of the Old Testament." Journal of Transactions of the Victoria Institute 87 (1955):82-92.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament." Paper submitted for course 685 Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1967.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Crockett, William Day. A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

"David Won Against Goliath Because of Giant's Eyesight?" Albuquerque, N.Mex., newspaper, May 1974.

Davies, P. R. "The History of the Ark in the Books of Samuel." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 5 (1977):9-18.

Davis, John J. Biblical Numerology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

Davis, John J. and John C. Whitcomb. A History of Israel. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Deem, Ariella. "And the Stone Sank Into His Forehead': A Note on 1 Samuel xvii 49." Vetus Testamentum 28:3 (1978):349-51.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

_____. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1967.

Demsky, Aaron. "Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon--An Historico-Geographic Riddle." Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 212 (December 1973):26-31.

Dothan, Trude. "Ekron of the Philistines. Part I: Where They Came From, How They Settled Down, and the Place They Worshiped In." Biblical Archaelolgy Review 16:1 (1990):26-36.

_____. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982.

Driver, S. R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 1913; 2nd ed. revised, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

Duplaix, Nicole. "Fleas: The Lethal Leapers." National Geographic 173:5 (May 1988):672-94.

Eastwood, John H. "Hannah, the Woman Who Prayed." Presbyterian Journal, 9 February 1983, pp. 11, 18.

Edelmann, Diane. "Saul's Battle Against Amaleq (1 Sam. 15)." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):71-84.

_____. "Saul's Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead (I Sam 11:1-11): Sorting Story from History." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96:2 (1984):195-209.

Edwards, Gene. A Tale of Three Kings: A Study in Brokenness. Auburn, Maine: Christian Books, 1980.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.

Eslinger, Lyle. Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1-12. Bible and Literature monograph 10. Sheffield, Eng.: Almond, 1985.

_____. "Viewpoints and Point of View in 1 Samuel 8-12." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):61-76.

Eves, Terry L. "One Ammonite Invasion or Two? 1 Sam 10:27-11:2 in the Light of 4QSama." Westminster Theological Journal 44:2 (Fall 1982):308-26.

Fensham, F. Charles. "Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?" Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 175 (October 1964):51-54.

Finkelstein, Emunah. "An Ignored Haplography in Samuel." Journal of Semitic Studies 4:4 (October 1959):356-57.

Fretheim,Terence E. "Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul's Kingship." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47:4 (October 1985):595-602.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gehrke, R. O. I and II Samuel. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Geyer, John B. "Mice and Rites in 1 Samuel V-VI." Vetus Testamentum 31:3 (July 1981):293-304.

Gnuse, Robert Karl. The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984.

Goldman, S. Samuel. London: Soncino Press, 1951.

Gordon, Robert P. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Library of Biblical Interpretation series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Regency Reference Library, 1986.

_____. "David's Rise and Saul's Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24-26." Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980):37-64.

_____. "Saul's Meningitis According to Targum 1 Samuel XIX 24" Vetus Testamentum 37:1 (January 1987):39-49.

_____. 1 & 2 Samuel, A Commentary. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1986.

Gottwald, Norman K. The Tribes of Yahweh, A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B. C. E. London: S C M Press, 1980.

Graesser, Carl F. "Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine." Biblical Archaeologist 35:2 (1972):34-63.

Greenhow, Peter N. "Did Samuel Sin?" Grace Journal 11:2 (1970):34-40.

Greenstein, Edward L. "To Grasp the Hem' in Ugaritic Literature." Vetus Testamentum 32:2 (April 1982):217-18.

Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 14. Sheffield, Eng.: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1980.

_____. "Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel." Vetus Testamentum 24:3 (July 1974):286-317.

_____. "Traditional composition in the Succession Narrative.'" Vetus Testamentum 26:2 (1976):214-29.

Haley, John W. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.

Harris, Scott L. "1 Samuel VIII 7-8." Vetus Testamentum 31:1 (January 1981):79-80.

Harton, George M., "Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-30 in History and in Eschatology." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981.

Heater, Homer, Jr. "A Theology of Samuel and Kings." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 115-55. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

_____ "Young David and the Practice of Wisdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 50-61. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I and II Samuel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Salvation of Samuel." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:3 (May-June 1994):1, 3-4.

_____. "The Salvation of Saul." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:4 (July-August 1994):1, 3.

Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. "A Hittite Analogue to the David and Goliath Contest of Champions?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968):220-25.

Horner, Tom. Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Howard, David M., Jr. "The Transfer of Power From Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13-14." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32:4 (1989):473-83.

Humphreys, W. Lee. "From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the Development of 1 Samuel." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (February 1982):95-117.

_____. "The Rise and Fall of King Saul: A Study of an Ancient Narrative Stratum in 1 Samuel." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18 (October 1980):74-90.

_____. "The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):18-27.

Janzen, J. Gerald. "Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh' (I Samuel 3.15)." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):89-96.

Jobling, David. "Saul's Fall and Jonathan's Rise: Tradition and Redaction in 1 Sam 14:1-46." Journal of Biblical Literature 95:3 (1976):367-76.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Keil, C. F. and Franz Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Kessler, Martin. "Narrative Technique in 1 Sm 16, 1-13." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32:4 (October 1970):543-54.

Kirkpatrick, A. F. The First Book of Samuel. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1891.

Kitchen, K. A. The Bible In the World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Klein, Ralph W. I Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Kochavi, Moshe, and Aaron Demsky. "An Israelite Village from the Days of the Judges." Biblical Archaelolgy Review 4:3 (1978):19-21.

Kohler, Ludwig. Old Testament Theology. Translated by A. S. Todd. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957.

Laney, J. Carl. First and Second Samuel. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 3: Samuel-- Kings, by Chr. Fr. David Erdmann and Karl Chr. W. T. Bahr. Translated, enlarged, and edited by C. H. Toy, John A. Broadus, Edwin Harwood, and W. G. Sumner.

Lemche, Niels Peter. "David's Rise." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 10 (November 1978):2-25.

Levenson, Jon D. "1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):11-28.

Luck, G. Coleman. "The First Glimpse of the First King of Israel." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):60-66.

_____. "The First Meeting of Saul and Samuel." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):254-61.

_____. "Israel's Demand for a King." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):56-64.

Mackie, G. M. Bible Manners and Customs. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1898.

Martin, John A. "Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):28-42; 562 (April-June 1984):131-45; 563 (July-September 1984):209-22; 564 (October-December 1984):303-14.

Mathewson, Steven D. "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming Old Testament Narratives." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):410-35.

Mavrodes, George I. "David, Goliath, and Limited War." Reformed Journal 33:8 (1983):6-8.

Mazar, Benjamin. "The Military elite of King David." Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963):10-20.

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. I Samuel. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1980.

_____. "The Apology of David." Journal of Biblical Literature 99:4 (1980):489-504.

McKane, William. I and II Samuel. London: SCM Press, 1963.

Mendelsohn, I. "Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the Akkadian Documents from Ugarit." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 143 (October 1956):17-22.

Merrill, Eugene H. "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):130-41.

_____. "1 Samuel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 431-55. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "Paul's Use of About 405 Years' in Acts 13:20." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):246-57.

Meyer, F. B. David: Shepherd and King. Condensed Christian Books series. Westchester, Ill.: Good News Publishers, 1960.

_____. Samuel the Prophet. Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.

Milgrom, Jacob. "Of Hems and Tassels." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:3 (May-June 1983):61-65.

Miller, J. Maxwell. "Saul's Rise to Power: Some Observations Concerning 1 Sam 9:1-10:16; 10:26-11:15 and 13:2-14:46." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36:2 (1974):157-74.

Miller, Patrick D., Jr. and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the "Ark Narrative" of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1977.

Miscall, Peter D. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the author, P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Munn-Rankin, J. M. "Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium B.C." Iraq 18 (1956):68-110.

New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Dagon," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.

Newsome, James D., Jr., ed. A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

Payne, David F. I & II Samuel. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.

Payne, J. Barton. "Saul and the Changing Will of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:516 (October-December 1972):321-25.

Pell, Peter J., Jr. First Samuel Bible Class Notes. Grand Rapids: Gospel Folio Press, n.d.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F. Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Ridout, Samuel. King Saul. Bible Truth Library series. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Roberts, J. J. M. "The Hand of Yahweh." Vetus Testamentum 21:2 (1971):244-51.

Rushing, Ronald Lee. "Phinehas' Covenant of Peace." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Segal, M. H. "The Composition of the Books of Samuel." Jewish Quarterly Review 55 (1964-65):318-39; 56 (1965-66):32-50.

Sellers, Ovid R. "Sling Stones in Biblical Times." Biblical Archaeologist 2:4 (1939):41-44.

Sewall, R. B. The Vision of Tragedy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962.

Sharpe, Norvelle Wallace. "David, Elhanan, and the Literary Digest." Bibliotheca Sacra 86 (July 1929):319-26.

Shaviv, Shemuel. "Nabi and Nagid in 1 Samuel IX 1 - X 16." Vetus Testamentum 34:1 (January 1984):108-13.

Simon, Uriel. "Samuel's Call To Prophecy: Form Criticism with Close Reading." Prooftexts 1:2 (May 1981):119-32.

Smith, H. P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904.

Smith, J. M. P. "The Character of King David." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):1-11.

Smith, Morton. "The So-Called Biography of David' in the Books of Samuel and Kings." Harvard Theological Review 44 (1951):167-69.

Stek, John. The Former Prophets: A Syllabus. Unpublished, 1985.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sturdy, John. "The Original Meaning of Is Saul Also Among the Prophets?' (1 Samuel X 11, 12; XIX 24)." Vetus Testamentum 20:2 (April 1970):206-13.

Swindoll, Charles R. David: A Man of Passion and Destiny. Great Lives from God's Word series. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1997.

Talmon, Shemaryahu. King, Cult, and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965.

Thomas, D. Winton. "A Note on noda' in I Samuel XXII. 6." Journal of Theological Studies 21:2 (October 1970):401-2.

Thomson, Clive A. "Samuel, the Ark, and the Priesthood." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:417 (July-September 1961):259-63.

Tidwell, N. L. "The Linen Ephod: 1 Sam. II 18 and 2 Sam. VI 14." Vetus Testamentum 24:4 (October 1974):505-7.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Studies in the Book of Samuel." Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):191-216; 33 (1962):107-18; 36 (1965):49-58.

Tucker, Stanley D. "The Theology of the Book of Samuel: A Study of God's Humiliation or Exaltation of Leaders." Biblical Viewpoint 12:2 (1978):152-59.

Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1957 ed. S.v. "Armor."

Walters, S. D. "The Light and the Dark." In Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, pp. 567-89. Edited by Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor. Sheffield, Eng.: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1988.

Wells, H. G. The History of Mr. Polly. New York: The Press of the Reader's Club, 1941.

Wenham, John W. The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

_____. "Large Numbers in the Old Testament. Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967):19-53.

West, Stuart A. "The Nuzi Tablets." Bible and Spade 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981):70.

Whitelam, Keith W. "The Defence of David." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (June 1984):61-87.

Wiebe, Donald W. "The Structure of 1 Sam 3: Another View." Biblische Zeitschrift 30:2 (1986):256-58.

Wiseman, D. J. "Alalakh." In Archaeology and Old Testament Study, pp. 119-35. Edited by D. Winton Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

_____. "Is it peace?'--Covenant and diplomacy." Vetus Testamentum 32:3 (1982):311-26.

Wood, Leon. Israel's United Monarchy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

_____. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woudstra, Marten H. The Ark of the Covenant from the Conquest to Kingship. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1965.

_____. The Book of Joshua. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Young, Fred E. "First and Second Samuel." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 273-305. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Youngblood, Ronald F. "1, 2 Samuel." In Deuteronomy-2 Samuel. Vol. 3 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. Faith of Our Fathers. Glendale, Calif.: Regal Books, 1976.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL;

otherwise called,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

INTRODUCTION.

This and the following Book are called by the Hebrews, the Books of Samuel, because they contain the history of Samuel, and of the two kings, Saul and David, whom he anointed. They are more commonly named by the Fathers, the First and Second Book of Kings. As to the writer of them, it is the common opinion that Samuel composed the first book, as far as the twenty-fifth chapter; and that the prophets Nathan and Gad finished the first and wrote the second book. See 1 Paralipomenon, alias 1 Chronicles, xxix. 19. (Challoner) --- The authors of the Third and Fourth Books of Kings were also prophets, but we know not exactly their names. These works have nevertheless been always esteemed authentic (Haydock) and canonical. (Worthington) --- Ven. Bede takes occasion to observe, from the Books of Kings (or as the Septuagint read, "of kingdoms;" Haydock) being placed after that of Judges, that the everlasting kingdom of Christ will succeed the general judgment. The translation of the priesthood and of the regal dignity, recorded in these books, denote also that Christ would united both in his own person; as the two wives of Eleana intimated, that both Jews and Gentiles would acknowledge the same Lord. (St. Jerome; St. Augustine; &c.) --- The transactions of Heli, Samuel and Saul, and the persecutions which David sustained from the latter, form the subject of the first book, (Haydock) during the space of 100 years. All the four books carry down the sacred history near 600 years, from the year of the world 2849 till the transmigration of Juda, in the year 3420. (Calmet) (Usher)

Gill: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 SAMUEL

This book, in the Hebrew copies, is commonly called Samuel, or the Book of Samuel; in the Syriac version, the Book of Samuel the Prophet; and in the Arabic version, the Book of Samuel the Prophet, which is the First Book of the Kings; and the Septuagint version, the Book of the Kingdom: it has the name of Samuel, because it contains an history of his life and times; and the Jews say ^a it was written by him; and as it may well enough be thought to be, to the end of the twenty fourth chapter; and the rest might be written by Nathan and Gad, as may he gathered from 1Ch 29:29 as also the following book that bears his name; and both may be called the Books of Kings, because they give an account of the rise of the kings in Israel, and of the two first of them; though some think they were written by Jeremiah, as Abarbinel; and others ascribe them to Ezra: however, there is no doubt to be made of it that this book was written by divine inspiration, when we consider the series of its history, its connection and harmony with other parts of Scripture; the several things borrowed from it, or alluded to in the book of Psalms, particularly what is observed in Psa 113:7, seems to be taken out of 1Sa 2:8, and the sanction which the Lord gives to it, by referring to a fact in it, whereby he stopped the mouths of the Scribes and Pharisees cavilling at his disciples, Mat 12:3, compared with 1Sa 21:3, yea, even, as Huetius ^b observes, some Heathen writers have by their testimonies confirmed some passages in these books, which they seem to have been acquainted with, as Nicolaus of Damascus ^c, and Eupolemus ^d; it contains an history of the government of Eli, and of the birth of Samuel, and his education under him; of the succession of Samuel in it, and the resignation of it to Saul, when he was chosen king; of his administration of his office, and of things done in the time of it, both before and after his rejection, and of the persecution of David by Saul, and is concluded with his death.

Gill: 1 Samuel 15 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO FIRST SAMUEL 15

In this chapter are recorded the order Saul had from the Lord to destroy Amalek utterly, 1Sa 15:1 the preparation he made to put it in execution, and the success thereof, 1Sa 15:4 the offence the Lord took at his not obeying his order thoroughly, with which Samuel was made acquainted, and which grieved him, 1Sa 15:10, upon which he went out to meet Saul, and reprove him; and a long discourse upon the subject passed between them, the issue of which was, that by an irrevocable decree he was rejected from being king, 1Sa 15:12 and the chapter is concluded with an account of Samuel's hewing in pieces Agag king of Amalek, and of his final departure from Saul, 1Sa 15:32.