1
Samuel 15:7-15,22-23
Context:
1 Samuel 13:1–15:35
Memory
Verse: 1 Samuel 15:22
Main
Idea: Judgment awaits those who reject God’s
instruction.
FIRST
THOUGHTS
Do you remember the parable Jesus told
about the vineyard owner who had two sons? A father said to his first son:
“Son, go and work in the vineyard today.” The son initially refused (“I will
not”), but later he “changed his mind and went.” The father then went to the
second son and likewise told him to go work in the vineyard. This son initially
agreed: “I go, sir,” but he didn’t go. Then Jesus asked his listeners: “Which
of the two did the will of his father?” (Matt. 21:28-32).
When
God seeks someone to fulfill a task or role, what qualities does He desire?
When the Lord God seeks a man or a woman
for a particular task or role, He looks for someone who will obey Him. While
other qualities can be spiritually valuable, they become meaningless if the
person in question doesn’t take God at His word and obey Him. King Saul
possessed some admirable qualities for leadership, such as discernment (1 Sam.
14:19) and courage (14:36). But at key moments, Saul failed the greatest test
of a spiritual leader—the commitment to obey God.
I. UNDERSTAND
THE CONTEXT
1
Samuel 13:1–15:35
The account of the reign of Saul in 1
Samuel 13–14 is episodic, jumping from one incident to another to illustrate
the nature of Saul’s reign. It concludes in 14:47-51 with a general summary of
his early reign. This general summary is in some respects the most important
part of the text. The individual episodes are important, but they skew our
picture of Saul if we don’t take into account the broader summation of his
deeds.
First, Saul was a great leader and
military commander. As 14:47 says, “Wherever he turned he routed them.” He had
victories over Moab, the Ammonites, and Edom (located east and southeast of
Israel), over the kings of Zobah (to the north of Israel), over the Amalekites
(desert raiders who came in from the southeast), and over the Philistines (to
the southwest of Israel). In short, he had victories in every direction. Saul
laid the foundation for the great empires of David and Solomon. Because of
Saul’s leadership, Israel was no longer the prey of the greedy peoples all
around them. He “delivered Israel out of the hands of those who plundered them”
(v. 48). In that sense, the Israelites got exactly what they asked for: a king
to go out and fight for them.
Second, we learn that the Philistines
were Saul’s most formidable enemy. Because his whole life was spent fighting
them, he was constantly on the lookout for good soldiers. Verse 52 says, “There
was hard fighting against the Philistines all the days of Saul. And when Saul
saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he attached him to himself.” This
demonstrated again Saul’s considerable military skills, and it shows us that he
thought about the long term. He wanted a core of professional, competent
soldiers. This was the beginning of a standing army in Israel. It fulfilled
Samuel’s prediction that a king would conscript Israelite young men into his
army (8:11). It also gave birth to the centralized, bureaucratic state that
came to maturity in the reign of Solomon.
Third, we learn the names of Saul’s
father (Kish), his wife (Ahinoam), his sons (Jonathan, Ishvi, and Malchishua),
his daughters (Merab and Michal), and his military commander (his cousin
Abner). Jonathan, Michal, and Abner would be important figures in the later
history. Saul also fathered two sons by a concubine named Rizpah (2 Sam. 21:8).
Saul does not appear to have kept a harem, and if his relationship with Rizpah
came after the death of his wife, Ahinoam, he may have been monogamous. This is
in stark contrast to David and Solomon, who kept large harems, and in so doing
brought great trouble to their reigns.
In short, the summary in 1 Samuel
14:47-51 tells us that Saul had many qualities that made for a great king. But
he also had fatal flaws that would make him a tragic figure. The episodes of
chapters 13–14 foreshadow his downfall. First, Saul was in some respects a
devout man, but he could also be headstrong, rash, and superstitious. This is
illustrated by his foolish command that put the whole army under a vow not to
eat anything while they were in the midst of a day of battle (14:24). His son,
Jonathan, not knowing about the vow, ate some honey. Because of this, Saul very
nearly killed his son (14:42-45). This behavior was an echo of Jephthah’s
foolish vow and his subsequent sacrifice of his daughter (Judg. 11:30-39). To
the alert Bible reader, this similarity to Jephthah is a warning that Saul was
unstable, had a confused understanding of faith in God, and would come to a bad
end.
Second, Saul could be persuaded to
disobey a direct command from God, as when he did not wait for Samuel but
personally officiated at a sacrifice (1 Sam. 13:8-14). This trait would be his
undoing.
We should also notice that Jonathan’s
heroic victory over a Philistine garrison near Michmash (14:1-14) is a parallel
to David’s heroic victory over Goliath. This prepares the reader for the story
of the friendship of David and Jonathan.
II. EXPLORE
THE TEXT
A. Saul’s disobedience (1 Sam. 15:7-9)
7
And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of
Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and
devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. 9
But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen
and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not
utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to
destruction.
Verse 7
The command that God gave to
Saul seems unbelievably harsh: he was to kill every living person among the Amalekites,
and he was to slaughter all of their livestock (15:3). This policy, often
called the “ban,” was actually rarely given in the Old Testament. It is a
directive that no one could be spared and that no plunder could be taken.
Normally, ancient warfare meant spoils for the victors. They would take the
survivors of the defeated people as captives and sell them into slavery, and
they would take the property, including livestock, as plunder. The normal rules
of warfare for Israel are found in Deuteronomy 20, and they indicate that the
ban was primarily meant for the wars of conquest under Joshua. Even in the
conquest, except for the city of Jericho, Israelites could take plunder for
themselves. But Jericho was under the full ban, and so were the Amalekites that
Saul was commanded to attack. Why were the Amalekites given such harsh
treatment?
The answer is given in verse
2: “I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when
they came up out of Egypt.” This refers to the incident in Exodus 17:8-16, when
the Amalekites attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. This was a particularly
treacherous act. The Israelites, having recently come out of slavery in Egypt,
no doubt appeared to be easy prey, and they had a large quantity of sheep that
would have been tempting plunder. But Joshua defeated the Amalekites. (This was
the episode in which Moses held up his rod, with Aaron and Hur supporting his
arms.) At the end of the battle, Moses placed a curse on the Amalekites to the
effect that God and His people would be forever at war with Amalek (Ex.
17:14-16). Thus, Amalek was permanently under the ban.
In addition, the Amalekites
continued to threaten and harass Israel in later years, after the conquest.
Amalekites raided Israel in force during the time of Gideon, both terrorizing
and plundering the people (Judg. 6). A contingent of Amalekites attacked
David’s base while he was away with his army, and they took away their wives
and children as captives. David led his men on a forced march to overtake and defeat
the Amalekites, thereby rescuing their families (1 Sam. 30). Although we
naturally recoil at the command Saul received, we should not anachronistically
read our values back into the early Iron Age. The Amalekites, even by the
standards of the day, were a brutal, lawless people.
Complicating the matter was
the fact that the Amalekites were closely associated with the Kenites, a group
that was much more sympathetic to the Israelites. Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro,
was a Kenite (Judg. 1:16; 4:11). The story of his visit to the Israelite camp
is told in Exodus 18. This is why Saul warned the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down
from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed
kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt” (1 Sam.
15:6). This shows Saul in a favorable light. He knew his Israelite history, and
he rightly spared the Kenites. Also, the notation that Saul set an ambush (v.
5) again shows that he was a careful military commander.
Saul defeated the Amalekites
in a campaign near Havilah and Shur. The Amalekites came out of
the Arabian Peninsula, and that is where Havilah was. Shur is often located at
the northeast corner of Egypt, but the Hebrew in verse 7 more precisely means
that Shur was “opposite Egypt.” It may have been just northwest of the Arabian
Peninsula. Regardless of the precise geographical location, it is clear that
Saul won a complete victory over the Amalekites. Except for what followed, this
would have been the greatest military achievement of his illustrious career.
Verses 8-9
Saul partially obeyed the
command he was given. He did slay all of the people except for their king, Agag.
Saul’s army destroyed all the worthless and unwanted things, but they did not
kill the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and
the lambs. It is clear enough why they kept the animals alive: greed. The
animals were very valuable, and the men wanted them for themselves.
It is not clear why Saul
kept Agag alive. It may be that there was a kind of reciprocal leniency among
kings. They could kill one another’s armies, but they did not kill each other.
In that way, kings could ensure their own survival even in defeat. Or it may be
that Saul intended to hold Agag for ransom. He might have received a very large
payment from other Amalekites in return for the living Agag, but it was certain
that he would get nothing for his corpse. It may be that Saul hoped to extract
some kind of concession from Agag, much as Ahab did from Ben-Hadad (1 Kings
20:31-42). Whatever his motive was, his action was in direct disobedience to
God.
This much is clear: Samuel
did not condemn Saul because Saul had an abundance of compassion. As far as we
can tell, Saul slaughtered the men, women, and children of Amalek without batting
an eye. He and his men took the livestock out of avarice, and he certainly had
some ulterior motive for sparing Agag. We should not suppose that Saul got a
raw deal, being criticized and condemned just for being kind.
There is yet another element
of the Old Testament story that makes Saul’s disobedience particularly
disturbing. We have noted that the only other place where the total ban was in
effect was at Jericho. When the Israelites brought down that city, however,
there was another example of a man who violated the command: Achan, who took
some of the plunder of the city for himself. For his sin, he and his family
were put to death (Josh. 7). Saul could not expect to repeat the sin of Achan
and yet go unpunished.
What
makes settling for partial obedience so tempting? In what ways could a believer
exclude the “best” from his or her obedience to God?
B. Samuel’S Confrontation (1 Sam. 15:10-15)
10
The word of the Lord came to
Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned
back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was
angry, and he cried to the Lord
all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And
it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for
himself and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And
Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment
of the Lord.” 14 And
Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing
of the oxen that I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from
the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to
sacrifice to the Lord your God,
and the rest we have devoted to destruction.”
Verses 10-11
Samuel received a message
from God: “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from
following me and has not performed my commandments.” The text does not say
that God had revealed to Samuel that Saul and his troops had kept some of the
plunder for themselves. It is possible that Samuel had already heard about this
in the ordinary way and that he was troubled about it, pondering how he should
respond. But God’s message made everything clear. Saul had sinned, and God had
decided that his dynasty must end. At that point, Samuel knew what he would
have to tell Saul.
Christians may wonder what
to make of God’s assertion that He regretted making Saul king. How can an
omniscient God regret anything? The problem here is similar to the problem in
Exodus 32:14. God had told Moses that He was going to wipe out the Israelites
because of the sin of the golden calf, but when Moses interceded for Israel,
God relented (that is, He changed His mind and did not destroy Israel). In
fact, the same verb is used in both verses.
A common way of dealing with
the problem is to say that the language here is condescending. In this
interpretation, God never really regrets or changes His mind about anything,
but He speaks as if He has had a change of heart so that human beings can
relate to Him as to another person. Otherwise, God’s way of dealing with people
would seem so alien that we, who naturally think in limited, finite terms,
would find God incomprehensible. God was, so to speak, pretending to have
regrets about Saul so that Samuel would understand that God was really serious
about ending Saul’s dynasty.
This explanation has some
serious drawbacks. First, it implies that God was deceiving Samuel, or at least
that He made a phony pretense about having regret. Second, God could have just
told Samuel outright that Saul’s kingship was finished without speaking about
regret at all. Third, and most importantly, this explanation presumes we know
more about the mind of God than we really do. We have no idea what it is like
to be omniscient, and we are hardly in a position to describe how an omniscient
being ought to act or think. It may be part of the greatness of God that He can
simultaneously be outside of time and yet also function within time. Perhaps He
can know all things and yet genuinely react to events and people as things play
out. Perhaps He can know all things timelessly and, from that perspective,
never feel regret. But also, in some manner we don’t fully understand, perhaps
He can have genuine feelings in response to what people do. That, at least, is
how the Old Testament always portrays Him.
Samuel was profoundly
distressed by God’s decision, and he cried to the Lord all night. Apparently, he pleaded with God to give
Saul another chance. But it was not to be. Samuel’s anguish shows us that he
was not just being a crotchety old prophet when he confronted Saul. The
decision came from God, not Samuel.
Verses 12-15
Samuel was told that Saul
went to build a monument for himself. While Saul was seeking honor for
himself, God’s honor had been diminished through disobedience. Ultimately, all
sin is a blight on the honor of God, and all judgment is the restoration of His
glory.
When Samuel confronted Saul,
he was rather indirect. After Saul claimed to have obeyed God, Samuel said, “What
then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I
hear?” He did not say, “You liar! You kept all that plunder for yourself!”
Even so, Saul immediately knew where the conversation was headed, and he
proceeded to make excuses. He claimed to have kept only the best livestock in
order to make a sacrifice to God. Samuel would have none of this.
What
makes confronting someone about his or her disobedience a challenge? What risks
are involved when confronting someone? What risks are involved when we don’t
confront someone?
C. God’s Rejection (1 Sam. 15:22-23)
22
And 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 listen than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion
is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has also rejected you from being king.”
Verses 22-23
After a fairly angry
exchange, in which Saul claimed that he did obey God and that the livestock he
kept were merely for a sacrifice, Samuel made one of the most memorable
statements in the Bible: Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and
presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Even if Saul had been telling the
truth, and even if he and all the men had intended to sacrifice all the
livestock they had plundered, it did not change anything. Saul had been given a
direct command, and he disobeyed it. Divination and idolatry are the most
heinous sins of the Old Testament. When Samuel told Saul that what he had done
was the equivalent of these, he meant that the deed was inexcusable. Because
Saul rejected the word of the Lord,
God rejected Saul from being king.
Good intentions never cancel
out disobedience. And the good intentions with which we excuse disobedience are
often fraudulent. We disobey because of something we want, and then we try to
salve our consciences with some religious act, such as giving something to the
church. God is not fooled. His judgment is certain, even if delayed. The only
preparation for divine judgment is to believe and obey Jesus Christ and His
gospel.
How
does accepting partial obedience or religious practice as a substitute for full
obedience show disrespect for God?
KEY
DOCTRINE
God
To God we owe the highest
love, reverence, and obedience.
BIBLE SKILL
Use a Bible dictionary (either print or online) to learn more about the
historical background.
Use a Bible dictionary to
discover the history of the Amalekites. Notice the different interactions and
altercations between them and the Israelites. How does their history help you
better understand the conflict between the two nations?
No comments:
Post a Comment