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.
The writer introduced the history of Saul's reign by referring to the king's age and possibly the length of his reign. Verse one contains a textual corruption in the Hebrew text.132There the verse reads, "Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . two years over Israel."
The first problem is Saul's age when he began to reign. No other text of Scripture gives us his age at this time. The NASB translators have supplied "40"and the NIV translators "30."The AV translators wrote, "Saul [was . . . years old],"leaving the number undefined.
Saul reigned about 40 years (Acts 13:21). If he was about 40 years old when he began to reign, he would have been about 80 when he died in battle on Mt. Gilboa (ch. 31). This seems very old in view of the account in chapter 31. Even if Saul was 70 he would have been quite old, hardly the age we would assume as we read chapter 31. The account of his anointing by Samuel pictures a young adult with a measure of maturity. I would suggest that 40 may be the first number that the copyists lost in 13:1. My reasons follow below.
The second problem is, what was the second number in 13:1 that is absent in the Hebrew text? The NASB has "32, "the NIV "42, "and the AV "2."If the last part of verse 1 gives us the length of Saul's reign, as is customary in similar summaries of kings' reigns (cf. 1 Kings 14:21; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:17, 26; et al.), the missing number probably should be 42.133If the last part of verse 1 gives the year of Saul's reign in which the events of chapter 13 happened, the number probably should be 2. I think probably the total length of Saul's reign is in view in verse 1. I prefer the NIV's 42 years here.
When did the events of this chapter happen if the last number in verse 1 indicates the length of Saul's reign? In 10:8 Samuel commanded Saul to go to Gilgal and to wait seven days for him there. In 13:8 we read that Saul went to Gilgal and waited seven days for Samuel there. Therefore the events of chapter 13 appear to have followed those in chapter 10 soon.134
However in 13:3 Jonathan is old enough to lead an invasion against a Philistine garrison. Jonathan must have been at least about 20 to do that. If he was about 20 and this was the beginning of Saul's reign, we have two problems. First, Saul must have been somewhat older than 30 when he began ruling. Yet this would make him quite old when he died in battle, as explained above. I think he was probably about 40 even though this would make him about 80 when he died. Second, if Jonathan was about 20 at the beginning of Saul's reign, he would have been about 60 when he died with Saul since Saul reigned about 40 years (Acts 13:21). If David was a contemporary of Jonathan, as 1 Samuel implies, David began reigning when Jonathan was about 60. Yet 2 Samuel 5:4 says David was 30 when he began to reign.
Some of the evidence (10:8 and 13:8) seems to support the view that the events of chapter 13 happened early in Saul's reign. Other evidence (the ages of David and Jonathan) suggests that they may have happened much later. I favor the view that the events in chapter 13 follow those in chapter 10 closely.135
Gibeah was Saul's hometown and his capital. Michmash was five miles northeast of Gibeah, and Geba was four. Evidently Saul wanted to clear the area around Gibeah--and the central Benjamin plateau on which it stood--of Philistines to make this center of Israelite life more secure. Jonathan's initial victory at Geba provoked the Philistines who massed their forces across the steep valley between Geba and Michmash.136Saul mustered the Israelite forces in the Jordan Valley at Gilgal, about 12 miles east of Michmash.137In doing so, he was following orders that Samuel had given him earlier (10:8). Apparently Saul was to meet Samuel to offer sacrifices of worship before he engaged the Philistines in battle. Because of the superior Philistine army the Israelite soldiers were afraid and some even fled (cf. Judg. 6:2). The enemy must have been strong to threaten Israel's eastern territory since Philistia was Israel's neighbor to the west.
"Since Hebrew' was commonly used by non-Israelites as a synonym for Israelite' (cf. 4:5-10), it is understandable that the two terms should alternate throughout the narratives of the Philistine wars in chapters 13-14."138
Fearful lest the mass desertion of his soldiers continue Saul decided to slay the sacrificial animals before engaging the enemy and to attack rather than to wait for Samuel to come and offer the sacrifices. This was a violation of the prophet's orders (10:8).139Saul could have asked for the Lord's help in prayer, of course, as Hannah did. Evidently ritual was very important to him so he offered the sacrifice and disobeyed Samuel. His choice suggests that he had a rather superficial relationship with Yahweh. Contrast Gideon who also faced overwhelming odds fearfully yet trusted and obeyed Yahweh nonetheless (Judg. 6).
Saul's punishment may appear excessively severe at first. However the king of Israel was the Lord's lieutenant. Any disobedience to his Commander-in-Chief was an act of insubordination that threatened the whole administrative organization of God's kingdom on earth. Saul failed to perceive his place and responsibility under God.140He assumed more authority than was his. For this reason God would not establish a dynasty for him (cf. 24:21). Had he obeyed on this occasion God would have placed Saul's descendants on his throne for at least one generation if not more (v. 13; cf. 1 Kings 11:38). Perhaps Saul's descendants would have reigned in a parallel kingdom with the king from Judah.141Now Saul's son would not succeed him. Eventually God would have raised up a king from the tribe of Judah even if Saul had followed the Lord faithfully (Gen. 49:10). That king probably would have been David.
Samuel's departure from the battlefield (v. 15) was symbolic of the breach that now opened up between Samuel and Saul. Saul's presumptuous plan also failed to bring his departing soldiers back to him.
Jonathan, a man of faith, initiated a great victory, but in this section we see that Saul, a man of pride, limited the extent of that victory while trying to extend it. Saul's failure to submit to Yahweh's authority resulted in his behaving foolishly more than wickedly.
Saul was an active warrior and was effective to an extent due to his native abilities and God's limited blessing. He punished the enemies of Israel (vv. 47-48), which was God's will. Yet he did not subdue and defeat them all as David did.
The information concerning Saul's family members that the writer recorded here corresponds to other similar ancient Near Eastern texts. It was common to give this information as part of a summary of a king's accomplishments (cf. 2 Sam. 8). Ishvi is probably an alternative name for Ishbosheth.
God brought valiant warriors to David and previously to Saul (10:26), but Saul now had to recruit these as he observed them. This is another indication of God's limited blessing on Saul. In contrast, hundreds of soldiers volunteered to serve with David. Saul established a standing army in Israel for the first time (cf. 8:11).
"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.148Saul 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).149God 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.157Later 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,158David 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.159God 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).160However 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).164Note 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).165Saul'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.
