But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, of the cattle, and of the fat calves, and the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. Then Yahweh’s word came to Samuel, saying, “It grieves me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments.” Samuel was angry; and he cried to Yahweh all night.
Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning; and Samuel was told, saying, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself, and turned, and passed on, and went down to Gilgal.”
Samuel came to Saul; and Saul said to him, “You are blessed by Yahweh! I have performed the commandment of Yahweh.”
Samuel said, “Then what does this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the cattle which I hear mean?”
Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the cattle, to sacrifice to Yahweh your God. We have utterly destroyed the rest.”
Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stay, and I will tell you what Yahweh said to me last night.” He said to him, “Say on.”
Samuel said, “Though you were little in your own sight, weren’t you made the head of the tribes of Israel? Yahweh anointed you king over Israel; and Yahweh sent you on a journey, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ Why then didn’t you obey Yahweh’s voice, but took the plunder, and did that which was evil in Yahweh’s sight?”
Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed Yahweh’s voice, and have gone the way which Yahweh sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the plunder, sheep and cattle, the chief of the devoted things, to sacrifice to Yahweh your God in Gilgal.”
Samuel said, “Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying Yahweh’s voice? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because you have rejected Yahweh’s word, he has also rejected you from being king.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23 God in his eternal counsel never changeth nor repenteth,…
God in his eternal counsel never changeth nor repenteth, as verse 29, though he seemeth to us to repent when anything goeth contrary to his temporal election.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv9–23 1Sa 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag,…
1Sa 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all [that was] good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing [that was] vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
Ver. 9. And the best of the sheep.] If Saul spare Agag, the people will take liberty to spare the best of the spoil, - Regis ad exemplum, &c., the sins of the great command imitation, and do as seldom go without attendants as their persons, - which they ought not to have done, because together with those spoils, the memory also of the nation remained, which God had decreed utterly to blot out. They should have done as they did once at Jericho. {Jos 6:17} But the dust of covetousness had put out their eyes; neither was it godliness, - as they pretended, - but gain, that made them so to fly upon the spoil. {1Sa 15:19}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Saul and the people; the one proposed to do…
Saul and the people; the one proposed to do so, and the other consented to it, and so both were guilty.
All that was good; which it is more than probable they reserved for their own use, rather than for sacrifice, because they knew God would not accept a sacrifice contrary to his own command. Thus they obey God only so far as they could without inconvenience to themselves; they destroyed only what was not worth keeping, nor fit for their use.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v10 Saul is here called to account by Samuel concerning…
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, Sa1 15:10, Sa1 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.
Read full note →
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 (Sa1 15:12), the place where he was made king (Sa1 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 (Sa1 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?" Sa1 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, Sa1 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 (Sa1 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 (Sa1 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 (Sa1 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 (Sa1 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, Sa1 15:20, Sa1 15:21. He denies the charge (Sa1 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, Sa1 15:22, Sa1 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, Sa1 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv9–23 And Saul and all the people spared Agag,.... Perhaps…
And Saul and all the people spared Agag,.... Perhaps Saul made the motion to spare him, and the people agreed to it; it may be, out of respect to him as a king; or because of the comeliness of his person, the height of his stature, and the largeness of his body, as Josephus (y) notes; or to carry him in triumph in a public show, see Sa1 15:12.
and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings; or "of the second sort", as in the margin, the second best; or rather which shed their two long teeth, as sheep at two years old did when reckoned at their full strength, and fittest for sacrifice (z):
Read full note →
and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; as they were commanded, but kept them for their own private use and advantage, and this not only the best and fattest of the flocks and herds, but of their household goods:
but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly: such of the cattle that were poor and lean, lame or blind, or had any defect in them, and household goods that were mere rubbish and lumber; such they entirely destroyed, killed the creatures, and burnt the goods; in doing which they thought they fulfilled the will of God.
(y) Ut supra, (Antiqu. l. 6. c. 7.) sect. 2. (z) Bidentes, Virgil. Aeneid. l. 6. ver. 39. Vid. Servium in ib.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 Vile - Thus they obeyed God only so far…
Vile - Thus they obeyed God only so far as they could without inconvenience to themselves.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv11, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23 Verse 11. It repenteth me that I have set…
Verse 11. It repenteth me that I have set up Saul] That is, I placed him on the throne; I intended, if he had been obedient, to have established his kingdom. He has been disobedient; I change my purpose, and the kingdom shall not be established in his family. This is what is meant by God's repenting-changing a purpose according to conditions already laid down or mentally determined.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23 1Sa 15:9. Would not utterly destroy them — As…
1Sa 15:9. Would not utterly destroy them — As they had been commanded of God, but took them as a prey to themselves. Every thing that was vile, they destroyed — All that was not worth the keeping. Thus they obeyed God as far as they could, without inconvenience and loss to themselves, which is a striking instance of the baseness of human nature, when governed by covetousness, or any such like grovelling affection or appetite.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 The fatlings - The present Hebrew text cannot be…
The fatlings - The present Hebrew text cannot be so rendered. It can only mean “the second best” (compare the margin), i. e., sheep of the age to cut or shed the two teeth, sheep in their prime. But it is probable that the reading is corrupt, and that “fat or dainty bits” is the true reading.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 Garments. Hebrew is commonly rendered, "fatlings." Septuagint, "eatables." (Calmet)…
Garments. Hebrew is commonly rendered, "fatlings." Septuagint, "eatables." (Calmet) --- Avarice seems to have actuated Saul, (Lyranus) or a false pity, (Josephus) or a desire to grace his triumph, ver. 12. (Glossa.) (Menochius)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv10, 12, 13 GOD REJECTS HIS FOR DISOBEDIENCE. (Sa1 15:10-11)
GOD REJECTS HIS FOR DISOBEDIENCE. (Sa1 15:10-11)
Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul--Repentance is attributed in Scripture to Him when bad men give Him cause to alter His course and method of procedure, and to treat them as if He did "repent" of kindness shown. To the heart of a man like Samuel, who was above all envious considerations, and really attached to the king, so painful an announcement moved all his pity and led him to pass a sleepless night of earnest intercession.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23 9. Spared Agag, and the best of the sheep…
9. Spared Agag, and the best of the sheep — The one for the purpose of gratifying his vainglory by leading captive so illustrious a slave; the other to gratify his covetousness. Thus he repeated the sin of Achan. Jos_7:21.
Of the fatlings — משׁנים, of the second sort, as margin correctly reads. The reference is, probably, to the age of the animals: those of the second birth, or later born, and therefore tender and particularly desirable, either for food or sacrifice.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 9. spared Agag] Perhaps to grace his triumph and…
9. spared Agag] Perhaps to grace his triumph and to be an evidence of his victory (Jdg_1:7): perhaps from a feeling of sympathy with a fellow king (1Ki_20:32).
and the best of the sheep, &c.] In direct violation of the Divine command. It was to be a sacred war from which the people were to take no gain of spoil, in token that it was undertaken in the execution of a Divine vengeance and not for their own profit.
Read full note →
fatlings] See note on p. 246.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 (9) And he took Agag . . . alive.—Agag…
(9) And he took Agag . . . alive.—Agag seems to have been for the sovereigns of Amalek the official title, like Pharaoh in the case of the kings of Egypt, and Abimelech among certain of the Philistine peoples. The meaning of the term Agag is unknown.
Utterly destroyed all the people.—That is to say, Ir-Amalek was sacked, and the nation generally broken up; but many, no doubt, escaped into the desert, for we hear of the people again on several occasions in this book. In 1Ch_4:43 their complete, and probably final, annihilation is recorded.
Read full note →
(9) Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen.—It would seem that Saul carried out the awful curse to the letter (with the exception that he spared the king) in the case of the human beings and the less valuable of their beasts. But covetousness seems to have suggested the preservation of the choicest cattle, and pride probably induced the Hebrew king to save Agag alive, that he might show the people his royal captive.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22 The fatlings. So the Syriac and Chaldee render the…
The fatlings. So the Syriac and Chaldee render the word, but the Hebrew literally means "the second best." Kimchi and Tanchum give perhaps a preferable rendering, "the second born," such animals being considered superior to the first born, as the dams had by that time arrived at their full strength.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv11, 14, 20, 22, 23 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul…
1Sa_15:11-23
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king.
Read full note →
Saul rejected
The story is graphic and pathetic. This is Sauls victory and also his defeat. Our defeats are often wrapped up in our victories. Some of our most dismal failures are hidden from us by the glare of a partial and disastrous success. Saul succeeded and failed. He conquered Agag, but disobeyed God. And so the glory of his victory is lost in the darkness of his defeat. A man may conquer the greatest of earths kings, but his life is a consummate failure if he disobeys the King of kings. And so, instead of praising Sauls victory let us meditate on Sauls sin. His sin was the sin of disobedience, the sin by which our first parents fell. In Sauls defence of his sin we possess a study of conscience unsurpassed in the literature of the world. Samuel on hearing of Sauls disobedience goes to meet him. Saul is the first to speak. Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord. Was he honest in saying this? he may have been. Other men have lied as outrageously and still believed themselves to be speaking the truth. The heart is deceitful above all things and is oftentimes unconscious of its own deceitfulness. To be sure he has preserved the life of Agag, but then imprisonment is a heavier punishment to a proud king than death itself. The people have been destroyed. This is the one thing essential. No danger can come from a king in chains. Saul has whittled down tire Divine commands a little, but only a little; and who is so foolish as to think that God will notice the swerving of a heirs breadth from what He commands? And reasoning thus we sometimes pare off the edges of Gods commandments, blissfully unconscious that we are doing anything positively wrong. To be sure, we are not keeping Gods commandment to the letter, but He does not expect us to keep it so. It is enough if we kill the Amalekites. There is no need of killing Agag. We take delight in slaying the Amalekites, but we are opposed to killing Agag. And later on we discover to our sorrow that Agag is the chief of the Amalekites and that ruin lurks in the survival of anything which God commands us to destroy Saving Agag costs many a child of God his crown. I have performed the commandment of the Lord, so Saul says, and while he speaks his sentences are punctuated by the lowing of oxen and the bleating of sheep. A mans conscience may be so drugged that it will not cry out against him, but some outside voice is sure to break forth in condemnation. God never leaves Himself without a witness. And if the animals are dumb, then the inanimate earth will speak. Abels blood will cry even from the ground. Saul had said nothing about the sheep, and so the sheep supplied what Saul had forgotten to mention. In their innocence they bleated out Seals guilt. The universe is so constructed that a guilty man cannot hide his sin. You assert your innocence, and yet my senses take knowledge of the evidences of your guilt. You say you do not drink too much; what meaneth, then, this reddening of the eyes and trembling of the hand? You say your heart is clean; what meaneth then this rottenness that trickles now and then into your talk? You say you are an honest man; what meaneth then this style of living which runs beyond the limits of your income? You say you are a Christian; what mean these scores of duties unperformed, bleating evidences of your unfaithfulness? And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites. Mark that word they. We might have expected it. When a man is driven into a corner, the most convenient trapdoor through which he can make his escape is that little word they. Conscience, when stirred, endeavours to shift responsibility. They did it. So says every man not brave enough to face the consequences of his own misdeeds. Why do you not, O preacher, preach spiritual and Scriptural sermons? Do not begin your answer with, Well, my people! And why, O Christian man and woman, do you not inaugurate that reform which your town needs? Please do not say anything about the people. Let each man bear his own responsibility without flinching. But even those of us who are most ready to make a scapegoat of the people do not wish to be too hard on them. We would be merciful and considerate. We can see reasons why the people act as they do. The people spared the best of the sheep. Only the best There was good reason for that. Why destroy the best of the sheep? Why cause unnecessary destruction? Extravagance certainly is not pleasing to God. We have used the same argument many a time We believe in saving the best of the sheep. We are so afraid of being reckless that we drop into disobedience. We would rather disobey God than kill one extra sheep. We are as afraid of killing good sheep as Judas was of wasting precious ointment and for the same reason. Many of Gods commands sound reckless, and so we curb His Divine impetuosity by our prudence. We do not hesitate to kill the best sheep for our own banquets, but when it comes to killing them for God that is quite another matter. But the people in this case bad not preserved the sheep for selfish uses. They had kept them with lofty and beautiful intentions. The people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God. To put these sheep to religious uses is certainly better than to slay them indiscriminately in the fury of war. God said to slay both ox and sheep, but it matters not to Him how they are slain. So Saul reasoned and so do we reason. There is a streak of the Jesuit in us all. If the end is good, we will not be too punctilious about the means. God cares for results. Methods are of comparative unimportance. The church must meet its expenses. It matters little how we raise the money, providing we raise it. It makes no difference how we get people to church, providing we get them. The Bible must be defended. It matters little what arguments are used, providing the blessed Book is saved. The sheep are to be slain. It matters little how or where they are slain, whether on the altar or on the side of one of Gods hills. It must be acknowledged that God in His word lays tremendous emphasis on the How, but if we are only zealous to increase His glory we feel confident He will not scrutinise too closely our spirit and methods. This is Sauls apology. It gives us a full length portrait of the man. While he speaks we feel we are looking on a soul going to pieces, a moral character in the process of disintegration, a king degenerating into a slave. Every sentence which he speaks tarnishes the gold in his crown and falls like a blow upon his sceptre, which first shivers and tinnily breaks. It is the sacrifice of the will which is pleasing to God. Obedience is the queen of the virtues. Disobedience is the mother of sins. It is the vine, and other sins are only branches. Because of disobedience Saul lost his crown, and so shall we, if like him disobedient, lose the inheritance which is ours. (Charles E. Jefferson.)
Saul rejected
On the top of the Hartz Mountains in Switzerland the figures of travellers, in certain states of the atmosphere, take on a gigantic size to the eye of an observer below, and every movement they make is exaggerated. In the career of King Saul, as it is presented to us in Scripture, we see the figure of a man raised to a dizzy height, his actions prelected, as it were, upon the clouds, so that all mankind may learn from them the desired lesson that Jehovah reigns, and that it is an evil end bitter thing to sin against him. Note--
I. Sauls elevation. If ever man was king by Divine right, it was Saul. Never were greatness and royalty more suddenly thrust upon one than in this ease. The priest and prophet, Samuel, gave him his title of king.
II. Sauls disobedience. This was seen plainly on two occasions: the first, when he sacrificed at Gilgal, contrary to an express command; the second, when he refused to smite Amalek utterly, and offer all the spoil to Jehovah. But these occasions simply brought to the surface an underlying state of disobedience which only waited its tempting inducements to appear. But before this last outward disobedience there had been a slowly increasing departure from the living God in the heart of the king, so that, when the wicked and justly punished Amalekites were put under the ban he was not equal to the occasion and he yielded to the temptation of the hour. The devoting of the whole nation to destruction was no arbitrary act of barbarism that assumed to be under Divine appointment, but a literal and genuine visitation from heaven upon those who richly deserved it. The phrase utterly destroy is in the original put under the ban. This ban was an old custom, originating before the time of Moses, but formulated and regulated by him, as were so many other social customs amidst which Israel grew up. In its simplest form it was the devotion to God of any object, living or dead.
III. The ground of Sauls rejection. It is stated in the briefest language. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath rejected thee from being king. The rejection was already an accomplished fact in the Divine purpose, although its execution was for a time delayed. In this complete rejection we are instructed in Gods ways by seeing that it proceeded on no technical and superficial grounds, as if the Almighty was an austere man, reaping where He had not sowed, and eager to secure a reason for condemning His servant. Even under the old dispensation, how spiritual was Gods claim; how identical with that which rests on us today. The sacrifices of God have always been a broken spirit and a contrite heart. Outward acts have never been accepted in place of an inward submission and penitence.
IV. The false repentance of Saul. It had much of the appearance of a godly sorrow that leads to peace. It surely was sorrow. It showed an aroused and alarmed conscience. Saul comprehended himself; saw the conflict within between his better and worse nature. Again and again he awoke to his sin and folly with bitter tears in after days, but never reached the point where he could say, in the wonderful words of his successor, Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned.
V. The mystery of sin and punishment. Who can understand his errors, or those of any man in ancient or modern times, delineated in the Bible or in our own literature? Who can find the key to a sinful life, and unlook all its mysteries and incongruities? What is sin but an irrational, abnormal, strange thing, making everyones life at points an enigma, and best described as a mystery in its origin, development, and results in eternity? Who shall attempt to fathom the connection between wrong-doing and punishment, and foresee the consequences of single transgression? Who is to say what a sin is in its real nature, and what its results ought to be in a holy government? We cannot tell when our characters have become so consistent in evil that God passes judgment on us, and tears from our hands all that He gave us, and for which we are called to live. God has left the consequences of sin in the unseen future, like the shadows of mountains when the sun is behind us. This may be because He wishes us to be more afraid of sin than of its results. This man, whose downfall was the result of his own misdeeds, was, in the hands of Providence, a scourge for Israel, sent to them, as we read, in Gods anger. The career of a sinner can be understood only when we see to what uses it is put in the worlds discipline. If we are obedient to God He will turn our lives into a blessing upon men. If we rebel, He still can use us turning our actions into scourges. To each of us is offered a kingdom, invisible but real, as old as eternity. (Monday Club Sermons.)
Sauls disobedience and rejection
The intoxication of power is upon him, impelling him directly in the teeth of the Divine warning. He is occupying dangerous ground. Our passage shows the turning point in Sauls history.
I. Let us observe the occasion which brought about the crisis. God had given him a commission to ban the Amalekites, the ancient enemies of Israel. The crisis in Sauls life had come. He fails to meet it, in the spirit of a true man of God. His soul finds temptation in a moment when power and success and human adulation have intoxicated him; he yields to the snare, and falls to rise no more. At the turning point of his life he is weighed in the balances and found wanting. The whole sad transaction and all its terrible consequences are summed up in one word--disobedience to positive Divine command. It breaks upon us at once. It is complete and fully manifested in a single transaction. But definite steps led up to it. It can be accounted for. It should have been avoided.
II. As the disobedience was complete and inexcusable, so the punishment was prompt, definite, and final. God hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. Successive steps led to its accomplishment. God caused Samuel to withdraw from him. He took his good Spirit away, and allowed an evil spirit to come upon him. He was left to his own rash, self-willed, and self-pleasing nature. He was allowed to work out his own destruction and the ruin of his dynasty, while God quietly but diligently prepared a better man to take his place on the throne of Israel. A great and solemn principle emerges here--the basis-principle upon which all right and enduring relations to God must rest,--to wit, obedience. There can be no happy relations between a sovereign Creator and dependent creatures upon any other scheme, even though that sovereign Creator be properly viewed as a tender Father. The whole question needs to be restated with firmness. The sentimentality of a spurious faith, which claims heaven and yet the right to please self, is a travesty upon the word of God and upon every serious utterance of human consciousness. And yet this sentimentality is seeking to interpret the preaching of salvation by the cross in the interest of selfish indulgence, and is going far to justify the sneer of the enemy, that morals are divorced from religion; for what are any Christian morals worth that do not mean obedience to the living God? Let Sauls sad fall by reason of disobedience warn us at thin point. In conclusion we may draw out a few brief lessons.
1. The danger of a halfway surrender to God, a consecration which has its reservations. Such a course is an insult to God. It is the very worst spirit of bargain making. It marks off a section of our individuality, into which God has no right to come with His demands. Saul was willing to serve God in being a king if he would have his way when the spoil was at hand. He was quite willing to fellowship Samuel and have his endorsement if he could sacrifice when he pleased. But this spirit brought him to a bad end.
2. See how disobedience demoralises the spirit and sets it upon unworthy shifts His character drooped lower and lower as he sought his way out from the consequences of disobedience by unworthy shifts. When we have sinned it is better to be open and ingenuous with God and man, and while sorrowing for the sin, meekly receive the consequences in the full purpose of immediate amendment.
3. The folly of those in authority, as parents, pastors or teachers, yielding to the tastes and entreaties of the young, the wayward, or the undisciplined for the privilege of doing that which is wrong either in itself or in its tendency. Saul pleaded that he yielded to the wishes of the people when he saved the best of the spoil. So with many now in the place of solemn and responsible authority. But this is simple weakness where we have the right to expect strength. This weakness does not lesson the guilt before God. (W. G. Craig, D. D.)
The commission given to Saul
The command given to Saul was unmistakable and imperative. And this was to be in fulfilment of the legacy of judgment and vengeance left to the people by Moses long before. In Moses words you have hints of the real character and life of the Amalekites that are to be associated with Samuels words, in which he calls them the sinners, the Amalekites. Here you have their character of bloodthirsty, treacherous marauders. The days of old needed the destruction of such as the Amalekites; and if Israel had to do the work it was needful that they should be utterly destroyed. It was better for the world to be without such sinners, and it was required, for Israels sake, that Saul and his people should have no gain from the conquest. God often does thus with the ill-gotten wealth of wicked nations. Where are all the riches of the mighty monarchies of old? Where is the bloodstained wealth of the ruined Roman Empire? Who can tell? God swept, it, away, for a curse--the curse of conquest and oppression--was upon at Consider, Sauls violation of the law of obedience. Saul gave himself to spoilation; the attempted shelter under fear of the people belied itself; his repeated words that they had brought the spoil to sacrifice to the Lord thy God were an attempt to justify sin by profession of good intention, and to degrade religious service of God into formal acts of ceremonial observance. The answer to all his excuses and explanations was simple and as imperative as the commands he had neglected, Because thou hast rejected the Word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king. There are many lessons taught us in these things, among which, let us note the following, for they touch solemn matters in the life of each of us.
I. It is evident that a professedly good or creditable intention will not justify a bad act. It is true that, the real character of any act is in the intention of the doer; but you cannot judge acts as though they were isolated, and to be taken each on its own merits. The intention that is behind one act may itself be a depraved spiritual act or represent a spiritual state that; God hates.
II. Nor can God be honoured in one way at the cost of dishonouring Him in another. Obedience to one command that is built out of the ruins and breach of another, must be displeasing to God. If we do, we shall add to non-performance of some duties the vitiating of those we do observe.
III. So, also, are we to learn that offerings to God are abomination if they do not express obedient love. For they may represent pride, vain-glory, or hypocrisy they may be a service of self that is all the more real for being hidden under the veil of Divine honour, or they may be a following of custom, or a sensuous dependence upon superstitious services for acceptance with the Lord. Gods supreme demand is loving obedience: the submission of the heart, the sacrifice of the will the offering up of self, the fasting from the self-willed indulgence of our own thoughts and intents. (R. G. B. Ryley.)
Saul rejected
What are the lessons with which the narrative is charged?
I. The danger of mistaking partial for complete obedience. Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.
1. God requires literal obedience.
2. Gods language never exceeds Gods meaning.
3. Conscience is seen most clearly in minute obedience.
II. The possibility of giving a religious reason for an act of disobedience.
I. The people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God
1. One duty must not be performed on the ruins of another. It was a duty to sacrifice, but sacrifice must not be offered upon disobedience.
2. Gods commandment must not be changed by mens afterthought. Lucky ideas, sudden inspirations, and the like, mean ruin, unless well tested.
III. The danger of being seduced into disobedience by social clamour. I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. The people who tempt are not the people who can save.
2. Where God has spoken distinctly there should be no human consultation
IV. The certain withdrawment of the best influences of life as the result of disobedience. And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Parents, ministers, friends, gone! There are some incidental points of application:--
1. Sin discovers itself: What meaneth this this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the cattle which I hear?
2. Sin will be punished. Four hundred years elapsed before the sword fell upon Amalek (Deu_25:17; Deu_25:19). Time has no effect upon moral distinctions, or moral judgments. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Sauls continued disobedience
A course of action more certainly calculated to insult the majesty of Heaven cannot be conceived than that which Saul adopted. It is true the command was partially obeyed, but the only case in which obedience was rendered was that in which there was no temptation to gratify selfish feeling. Where, however, anything could be turned to his own personal advantage, there the command of God was recklessly trifled with. Look attentively at Saul in this matter. When Jonathan had done nothing to deserve death, there was no mercy for him in his fathers heart; and it required the downright and peremptory prohibition of all Sauls army to save the innocent son alive. But, when a duty was rendered imperative by that God who is not bound to give, in any case, His reasons for action, Saul was deputed to put Agag to death, when to have done this would have been but an act of simple obedience, he ventured to disobey, and spared the man whom God had marked for destruction. It was, in Sauls view, a matter of pride to have his triumph graced by the presence of a conquered king, to make Agag feel that he owed his life to his own clemency, and that he held its prolongation on the tenure of his conquerors will. He found a greater gratification in ell this than in simple obedience to God. Samuel goes, after a night spent in grief and in prayer, to be the bearer of the tidings of Gods displeasure. But what strange scene is this which breaks upon us as the messenger of the Lord reaches Gilgal? Much as we know of Saul, and accustomed as we have become to the proofs of his moral obtuseness, we are hardly prepared for the downright self-complacency, for the cool effrontery of the words which he addressed to Samuel, Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment, of the Lord.
I. We are reminded that a great amount of direct sin may be committed and nevertheless disguised, under a loud profession of obedience to God. There is, in some individuals, a forwardness in certain forms of duty which cost no self-denial at all; a forwardness, also, in the announcement of what has been done which is, in itself, to practised eyes a ground for suspicion that all is not right behind the scenes We sometimes notice individuals overdoing the thing that is courteous and polite--glaringly civil--towards those who come on the errand of Christian fidelity, and whose business is with souls in prospect of the great account. There is so much joy expressed at seeing them, there is so much interest taken in their presence, there is such a sudden burst of cordiality, as that upon the very amazement excited there follows the suspicion that something is going on which there is an effort to conceal. Let us aim after such a walk and conversation as that we can be natural in our demeanour, and not artificial and forced, such a life as will bear inspection behind the scenes, and as will not compel those who watch for souls to ask, as they look around, what meaneth this or that? what meaneth this unholy gratification? what meaneth this unsubdued temper?
II. The answer of Saul teaches that the men who, to gratify their own purposes, will lead others wrong and countenance them in evil-doing, will be the very first to expose them when they want to excuse themselves. And Saul said, They--not I--for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed. Ah! study well that sentence, They did it. Would that its impressiveness might be felt by the thousands who are too ready to be led by the advice, by the example, of those who ought to have but one rule for their own conduct and for their Influence over others too, and that rule Gods word--Gods will. There are some who will lead you into evil for the sake of getting countenance to themselves in their own want of religion. How many have had to mourn at last, when they have found their advisers converted into their accusers, when they have seen their companions in guilt stand as the witnesses for their condemnation.
III. There are other erroneous principles in this answer of Saul.
1. He evidently implied that a formal act of obedience might be taken as a set-off against an act of direct disobedience. He implied that, putting one thing over against the other, God would be satisfied in the long run. If he intended to offer sacrifice at all, it was upon the principle of compromise and composition. He would have given God a part of the spoil, that he might have kept a much larger portion for himself. He would have offered a fraction, that the extensive remainder might not have rendered his conscience uneasy. In those sacrifices which you offer to God no equivalent is found for the want of obedience. Obedience, as a principle, has a value far above sacrifice, as an action; it is better than sacrifice--better, as the principle must be superior to the form in which it is embodied--better, as the affection which sends a gift is more valuable than the gift itself. How, then, with justice, can the one be substituted for the other? The offering and the sacrifice have a value as embodiments of the principle of obedience and love--then only are they acceptable; but as substitutes for principle they have no acceptableness.
2. Another error in Sauls answer to which Samuel addressed himself was this, that, admitting he was in fault, there was no great harm in his sin after all. The king of Israel did not, indeed, use these words, but doubtless the prophet gathered that this was his real sentiment. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Here we see a class of sins mentioned whose heinousness was undoubted. Witchcraft God had forbidden to be tolerated on any account. Iniquity is here undoubtedly put for flagrant violation of Gods law; such, for instance, as the idolatry mentioned immediately after. The probability is that the king of Israel plumed and prided himself upon his public acts in reference to these very points. You have acted as though you thought witchcraft was a great crime, and so it is; but then rebellion such as that which you have manifested is as bad. Your rebellion, what has that, been but putting God out of His proper place of authority, and consulting your will and your inclination instead of listening to His voice. The actual amount of our guilt must not be adjusted by the external form of the transgression in which it issues--by its classification according to outward appearance Saul congratulated himself on being thought far superior to the consulter of those who had familiar spirits, and would have been shocked at the idea of being regarded as an idolater; but God thought him just as bad as though he were the one or the other. It is well for us to recollect that in spirit we may be bearing the very same kind of guilt before the eye of Omniscience which we are condemning in the declared conduct of others. (J. A. Miller.)
Sauls dethronement
Saul has thrown away his last chance, and Samuel mourns for him in the bitterness of his soul. Rationalistic writers, who would fain remove the miraculous out of Scripture, and explain the currents of its history by the play of human passions, have maintained, in strange inconsistency with the facts before them, that it was Samuel who compassed Baals misfortunes. They argue that, displeased with the king for supplanting him in the rule and the affections of the people, he had secretly wrought his fall. How utterly inconsistent such a view is with the facts of Baals history, especially how utterly inconsistent it is with the true relation of Samuel to Saul, as disclosed in the history, need hardly be stated. So we read that Samuel, when be bad heard of Sauls transgression, cried unto the Lord all night. and again in the last verse of the chapter, that Samuel mourned for Saul. The prophets tears and entreaties could not avert the doom that was inevitable. Saul had sinned away his last, chance, and he was finally rejected. Saul, after setting up a monument, commemorative of his victory, at Carmel, had gone down to Gilgal. Samuel having learned of his movements, proceeded thither to meet him. An interview followed. Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord. The refutation of Sauls falsehood is not far to seek. It comes from the sheep and the oxen, the very spoils which he has spared. The veil of his false piety is in a moment rent off, and his true position before God revealed. The fearful nature of that position flashes upon him; Saul must face the sad reality. The act of disobedience which had caused his rejection betrayed his whole character as carnal and estranged from God. We are struck here with the cowardice of his self-vindication. They have brought them from the Amalekites; the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen. He himself has had no share in the sin--the transgression is the act of the army! In their obedience, however, be will claim a part, The rest we have utterly destroyed. We blame our circumstances, we blame others, we blame God; how slow we are to blame ourselves! The first symptom of a right state of mind is when the sinner, in self-condemnation and sorrow, acknowledges his guilt as his own. Saul, so brave in the battlefield, so generous when his better nature was called into play, roils his guilt on others. The people did it; he himself was innocent. What moral cowardice! But his reply is not more cowardly and mean than it is false. They did it, he declares, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God. Who can for a moment believe that Saul spoke what was true? The assumed motive of sacrifice was a hollow falsehood, an afterthought, as flimsy as it was false. Further, one is struck with the profane daring of Sauls reply. The spoils were spared, he says to sacrifice, unto the Lord; it is as if the mention of such a motive would so gratify the Lord am to lead Him to compound with him for his transgression. Let us mark finally the spirit of estrangement from God which breathes in Sauls reply The people spared the spoils, he says, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God It is not the, Lord my God, for, alas! Seals guilt has estranged him from God. A great barrier has arisen between him and the Lord. God is no longer his, but Samuels God. How cad the fall! (Henry W. Bell, M. A.)
Christian culture
I. No excuse, however plausible, can ever justify disobedience to a Divine command.
II. God held Saul responsible for this disobedience, and personally punished him for it, though be plead that it was the act of the people.
III. Sacrifice instead of obedience is a loathing to God.
IV. God uses strange means, sometimes, to betray guilt. (Homiletic Review.)
The self-righteous
Solomon, in his Proverbs, writes: Most men will proclaim everyone his own goodness; but a faithful man who can find? and also, There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. Solomon discovered the self-righteous in his day. Cloaks of superior piety covered hearts full of impiety. Our Saviour likewise witnessed much of outward cleanliness, but inward wickedness. Semblances of piety only--shells without the kernel. In all ages and among all nations this class is found One of the most vivid illustrations of a self-righteous man is that presented in Sauls character. Note in what his self-righteousness consisted:
1. In partially heeding the Lords commands Partial service and fondness for spoils exhibit his true character. Society today is tinctured with like partial service and fondness for spoils.
2. In endeavours to appear good. The ready salutation was common in the East; his assertion of fidelity unasked was egotistic. Moreover it was false.
3. In excusing self and condemning others. They did it. He shirks responsibility, he would be seen of men as the true captain, when in fact he was the real hypocrite.
4. In commanding sacrifice in justification of disobedience. He claims that the spoils were for religious purposes. What vain justification! As well may the dealer in ardent spirits argue that he does his damning work that he may build a church. Good deeds cannot stone for disobedience without repentance. If we become enamoured of our goodness, our piety is vain, and exclusion from Christs kingdom is certain. It was the hidden rock that sent the City of Columbus, with her precious freight, into the mighty deep. The hidden defect in the car wheel brings wreck and ruin to the train. The hidden flaw in the column or arch tells the story of disaster and death. The hidden defect of self-righteousness will bring upon us irreparable ruin. Clothe yourselves with Christs righteousness. (W. E. Fetcham.)
Partial obedience a sin
This fragment of ancient history teaches--
I. That partial obedience to the commands of God is not satisfactory to Him.
II. That the performance of one duty cannot atone for the neglect of another.
III. That there is in sin a sad tendency to self-multiplication. History abounds in examples of this self-propagating power of evil. Men get entangled in wickedness, and then, with a view to free themselves, they plunge deeper into the labyrinth.
I am in blood
Steppd in so far, that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go oer.
--Shakespeare.
The beginning of evil is like the escape of water from a great canal or capacious reservoir; it is like the falling of a spark upon combustibles. No one can tell when or where its ravages wilt end. Will they ever totally end? Beware of such beginnings!
IV. That obedience to popular demands is not synonymous with obedience to God. (W. Jones.)
Showy profession
as the most florid people do not always enjoy the firmest state of health, so the most showy professors are not always the holiest and most substantial believerses (A. Toplady.)
And it grieved Samuel, and he cried unto the Lord all night.
Samuels grief over Saul
It is the distinguishing mark of Gods children that they sigh and cry for the offences and affronts committed against their God. One prophet wished that his head were waters, add his eyes a fountain of tears, that he might weep day and night (Jer_9:1) Another declared, his tears ran like rivers, because men kept not Gods laws (Psa_119:136). Another said, he had continual sorrow in his heart for his unconverted brethren (Rom_9:2). And when God would point out the grand mark by which his own were to be known, he says, Go through the midst of the city, the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof (Eze_9:4). When wickedness is going on in the streets, or in the secret chambers, do you shut your door about you, and cry unto the Lord all night? or do you look on with something like interest, and smile when you ought to sigh, and laugh when you ought to weep? A school, mistress was once telling me of something that a girl had done wrong; and while she was describing the fault in a very lively manner, several of the children smiled, and scarcely suppressed a laugh. She immediately turned to them with a solemnity and concern which I can never forget, and said, Now, girls, you have made her sin your own, those who could laugh at it could do it. The girls looked alarmed, and I hope they would not again so thoughtlessly make a mock at sin. (Helen Plumptre.)
Grief over a fallen brother
Bishop Thirlby was appointed by Queen Mary, and went as her ambassador to Rome to swear anew Englands allegiance to the Pope. But when he performed the ceremony of degradation over Archbishop Cranmer, he wept with keenest sorrow as he did it. (H. O. Mackay.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v14 (*A few paragraphs on the Life of David are…
CHAPTER X X I I I.
DAVID'S EARLY LIFE*
Read full note →
(*A few paragraphs on the Life of David are reproduced from the author's book David, King of Israel.")
1Sa_15:14-23.
BEFORE we enter at large into the incident of which these verses form the record it is desirable to settle, as far as we can, the order of events in the early life of David.
After being anointed by Samuel, David would probably return to his work among the sheep. It is quite possible that some years elapsed before anything else occurred to vary the monotony of his first occupation. The only interruption likely to have occurred to his shepherd life would be, intercourse with Samuel. It is rather striking that nothing is said, nothing is even hinted, as to the private relations that prevailed in youth between him and the venerable prophet who had anointed him with the holy oil. But it cannot be supposed that Samuel would just return to Ramah without any further communication with the youth that was to play so important a part in the future history of the country. If Saul, with all his promising qualities at the beginning, had greatly disappointed him, he could only be the more anxious on that account about the disposition and development of David. The fact that after David became the object of the murderous jealousy of Saul, it was to Samuel he came when he fled from the court to tell what had taken place, and to ask advice (1Sa_19:18-19), seems to indicate that the two men were on intimate terms, and therefore that they had been much together before. Whether David derived his views of government from Samuel, or whether they were impressed on him directly by the Spirit of God, it is certain that they were the very same as those which Samuel cherished so intensely, and which he sought so earnestly to impress on Saul. God's imperial sovereignty, and the earthly king's entire subordination to him; the standing of the people as God's people, God's heritage, and the duty of the king to treat them as such, and do all that he could for their good; the infinite and inexhaustible privilege involved in this relation, making all coquetting with false gods shameful, dishonouring to God, and disastrous to the people, - were ruling principles with Samuel and David alike. If David was never formally a pupil of Samuel's, informally he must have been so to a large extent. Samuel lived in David; and the complacency which the old prophet must have had in his youthful friend, and his pleasure in observing the depth of his loyalty to God, and his eager interest in the highest welfare of the people, must have greatly mitigated his distress at the rejection of Saul, and revived his hope of better days for Israel.
As David grew in years, but before he ceased to be a boy, he might acquire that local reputation as "a mighty valiant man and a man of war" which his friend referred to when he first mentioned him to Saul. In him as in Jonathan faith gendered a habit of dash and daring which could not be suppressed in the days of eager boyhood. The daring insolence of the Philistines, whose country lay but a few miles to the west of Bethlehem, might afford him opportunities for deeds of boyish valour. Jerusalem, the stronghold of the Jebusites, was but two hours distant from Bethlehem, and on the part of its people, too, collisions with Israelites were doubtless liable to occur. It may have been now, or possibly a little later, that the contest occurred with the lion and the bear. The country round Bethlehem was not a peaceful paradise, and the career of a shepherd was not the easy life of lovesick swains which poets dream.
It was at this period of David's life that Saul's peculiar malady took that form which suggested the use of music to soothe his nervous irritation. His courtiers recommended that he should seek out a cunning player on the harp, whose soothing strains would calm him in the paroxysms of his ailment. Obviously, it was desirable that one who was to be so close to a king so full of the military spirit as Saul should have a touch of that spirit himself. David had become known to one of the courtiers, who at once mentioned him as in all respects suitable for the berth. Saul accordingly sent messengers to Jesse, bidding him send to him David his son, who was with the sheep. And David came to Saul. But his first visit seems to have been quite short. Saul's attacks were probably occasional, and at first long intervals may have occurred between them. When he recovered from the attack at which David had been sent for, the cunning harper was needed no longer, and would naturally return home. He may have been but a very short time with Saul, too short for much acquaintance being formed. But it is the way of the historians of Scripture, when a topic has once been introduced, to pursue it to its issues without note the events that came between. The writer having indicated how David was first brought into contact with Saul, as his musician, pursues the subject of their relation, without mentioning that the fight with Goliath occurred between. Some critics have maintained that in this book we have two accounts of David's introduction to Saul, accounts which contradict one another. In the first of them he became known to him first as a musician sent for in the height of his attack. In the other it is as the conqueror of Goliath he appears before Saul. It is the fact that neither Saul nor any of his people knew on this occasion who he was that is so strange. According to our view the order of events was this: David's first visit to Saul to play before him on his harp was a very short one. Sometime after the conflict with Goliath occurred. David's appearance had probably changed considerably, so that Saul did not recognize him. It was now that Saul attached David to himself, kept him permanently, and would not let him return to his father's house (1Sa_18:2). And while David acted as musician, playing to him on his harp in the paroxysms of his ailment (1Sa_18:10), he went out at his command on military expeditions, and acquired great renown as a warrior (1Sa_18:5). Thus, to turn back to the sixteenth chapter, the last two verses of that chapter record the permanent office before Saul which David came to fill after the slaughter of the Philistine. In fact, we find in that chapter, as often elsewhere, a brief outline of the whole course of events, some of which are filled up in minute detail in the chapter following.
Having thus settled the chronology, or rather the order of events in David's early history, it may be well now to examine more fully that period of his life, in so far as we have any materials for doing so.
According to the chronology of the Authorized Version, the birth of David must have occurred about the year before Christ 1080. It was about a hundred years later than the date commonly assigned to the Trojan war, and therefore a considerable time before the dawn of authentic history, at least among the Greeks or the Romans. The age of David succeeded what might be called the heroic age of Hebrew history; in one sense, indeed, it was a continuation of that period. Samson, the latest, and in some sense the greatest of the Jewish heroes, had perished not very long before; and the scene of his birth and of some of his most famous exploits lay within a very few miles of Bethlehem. In David's boyhood old men would still be living who had seen and talked with the Hebrew Hercules, and from whose lips high-spirited boys would hear, with sparkling eye and heaving bosom, the story of his exploits and the tragedy of his death. The whole neighbourhood would swarm with songs and legends illustrative of the deeds of those mighty men of valour, that ever since the sojourn in Egypt had been conferring renown on the Hebrew name. The mind of boyhood delights in such narratives; they rouse the soul, expand the imagination, and create sympathy with all that is brave and noble. We cannot doubt that such things had a great effect on the susceptible temperament of the youthful David, and contributed some elements of that manly and invincible spirit which remained so prominent in his character.
But a much more important factor in determining his character and shaping his life was the religious awakening in which Samuel had so prominent a share. Not a word is said anywhere of the manner in which David's heart was first turned to God; but this must have been in his earliest years. We think of David as we think of Samuel, or Jeremiah, or Josiah, or John the Baptist, as sanctified to the Lord from his very childhood. God chose him at the very outset in a more vital sense than He afterwards chose him to be king. In the exercise of that mysterious sovereignty which we are unable to fathom, God made his youthful heart a plot of good soil, into which when the seed fell it bore fruit an hundredfold. In strong contrast to Saul, whose early sympathies were against the ways and will of God, those of David were warmly for them. Samuel would find him an eager and willing listener when he spoke to him of God and His ways. How strange are the differences of young persons, in this respect, when they come first under the instructions of a minister or other servant of God! Some so earnest, so attentive, so impressed; so ready to drink in all that is said; treasuring it, hiding it in their hearts, rejoicing in it like those that find great spoil. Others so hard to bring into line, so glad of an excuse for absence, so difficult to interest, so fitful and unconcerned. No doubt much depends on the skill of the teacher in working upon anything in their minds that gives even a faint response to the truth. And in no case is the aversion of the heart beyond the power of the Holy Spirit to influence and to change. But for all that, we cannot but acknowledge the mysterious sovereignty which through causes we cannot trace makes one man so to differ from another; which made Abel so different from Cain, Isaac from Ishmael, Moses from Balaam, and David from Saul.
Was David at any time a member of any of the schools of the prophets? We cannot say with certainty, but when we ponder what we read about them it seems very likely that he was. These schools seem to have enjoyed in an eminent degree the gracious power of the Holy Spirit. The hearts of the inmates seem to have burned with the glow of devotion; the emotions of holy joy with which they were animated could not be restrained, but poured out from them, like streams from a gushing fountain, in holy songs and ascriptions to God; and such was the overpowering influence of this spirit that for a time it infected even cold-hearted men like Saul, and bore them along, as an enthusiastic crowd gathers up stragglers and sweeps them onward in its current. It seems highly probable that it was in connection with these institutions, on which so signal a blessing rested, that the devotional spirit became so powerful in David afterwards poured out so freely in his Psalms. For surely he could not be in the company of men who were so full of the Spirit without sharing their experience and pouring forth the feelings that stirred his soul.
We all believe in some degree in the law of heredity, and find it interesting to trace the features of forefathers, physical and spiritual, in the persons of their descendants. The piety, the humanity, and the affectionateness of Boaz and Ruth form a beautiful picture in the early Hebrew history, and seem to come before us anew in the character of David. Boaz was remarkable for the fatherly interest he took in his dependants, for his generous kindness to the poor, and for a spirit of gentle piety that breathed even through his secular life. Was it not the same spirit that dictated the benediction, " Blessed is he that considereth the poor; the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble"? Was it not the same interest in the welfare of dependants that David showed when "he dealt among the people, even the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as to the men, to everyone a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine? Ruth again was remarkable for the extraordinary depth and tenderness of her affection; her words to Naomi have never been surpassed as an expression of simple, tender feeling: ''Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Does not this extraordinary tenderness seem to have fallen undiminished to the man who had such an affection for Jonathan, who showed such emotion on the illness of his infant child, and poured out such a flood of anguish on the death of Absalom? The history of Boaz and Ruth would surely take hold very early of his mind. The very house in which he lived, the fields where he tended his sheep, every object around him, might have associations with their memory; aged people might tell him stories of their benevolence, and pious people give him traditions of their godliness, and thus an element would be contributed to a character in which the tenderness of a woman and the piety of a saint were combined with the courage and energy of a man.
The birthplace of David, Bethlehem, is more remarkable for its moral associations than its natural features. Well has it been said by Edward Robinson of the place where both David and Jesus were born, "What a mighty influence for good has gone forth from this little spot upon the human race both for time and for eternity!It was situated some six miles to the south of Jerusalem, and about twice that distance to the north of Hebron. The present town is built upon the north and north-east slope of a long grey ridge, with a deep valley in front and another behind, uniting at no great distance, and running down toward the Dead Sea. The country around is hilly, but hardly beautiful; the limestone rock gives a bare appearance to the hills, which is not redeemed by boldness of form or picturesqueness of outline. The fields, though stony and rough, produce good crops of grain; olive groves, fig-orchards, and vineyards abound both in the valleys and on the gentler slopes; the higher and wilder tracts were probably devoted to the pasturing of flocks. The whole tract in which Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem are situated is elevated nearly four thousand feet above the level of Jordan and the Dead Sea on the one side, and between two and three thousand feet above the Mediterranean on the other. Among these hills and valleys David spent his youth, watching the flocks of his father.
We have seen that the life of a shepherd in those scenes was not without its times of danger, making great demands on the shepherd's courage and affection. In the main, however, it was a quiet life, affording copious opportunities for meditation and for quiet study. It was the great privilege of David to see much of God in His works and to commune with Him therein. The Psalms are full of allusions to the varied aspects of nature - the mountains, the rocks, the rivers, the valleys, the forests, the lightning, the thunder, the whirlwind.
It is not easy to say how much of the written Word existed in David's time, but at the most it could be but a fragment of what we now possess. But if the mines of revelation were few, all the more eager was his search for their hidden treasures. And David had the advantage of using what we may call a pictorial Bible. When he read of the destruction of Sodom he could see the dark wall of Moab frowning over the lake near to which the guilty cities were consumed by the fire of heaven. When he paused to think of the solemn transactions at Machpelah, he could see in the distance the very spot where so much sacred dust was gathered. Close by his daily haunts one pillar marked the place where God spake to Jacob, and another the spot where poor Rachel died. In the dark range of Moab yon lofty peak was the spot whence Moses had his view and Balaam his vision. It was from that eminence the prophet from Pethor saw a star come out of Jacob and a sceptre rise out of Israel that should smite the corners of Moab and destroy all the children of Seth. The sympathy with God fostered by these studies and meditations was of the closest kind; an unusually clean and impressive knowledge seems to have been acquired of the purpose of God concerning Israel; drinking in himself the lessons of revelation, he was becoming qualified to become the instrument of the Holy Spirit for those marvellous contributions to its canon which he was afterwards honoured to make.
And among these hills and valleys, too, David would acquire his proficiency in the two very different arts which were soon to make him famous - the use of the sling and the use of the harp. It seems to have been his ambition, whatever he did, to do it in the best possible way. His skill in the use of the sling was so perfect that he could project a stone even at a small object with unerring certainty. His harp was probably a very simple instrument, small enough to be carried about with him, but in handling it he acquired the same perfect skill as in handling his sling. In his hands it became a wonderfully expressive instrument. And hence when Saul required a skilful musician to soothe him, the known gifts of the young shepherd of Bethlehem pointed him out as the man.
Of the influence of music in remedying disorders of the nerves there is no want of evidence. ''Bochart has collected many passages from profane writers which speak of the medicinal effects of music on the mind and body, especially as appeasing anger and soothing and pacifying a troubled spirit" (Speaker's Commentary). A whole book was written on the subject by Caspar Læscherus. Professor of Divinity at Wittenberg (A.D. 1688). Kitto and other writers have added more recent instances. It is said of Charles IX. of France that after the massacre of St. Bartholomew his sleep was disturbed by nightly horrors, and he could only be composed to rest by a symphony of singing boys. Philip V. of Spain, being seized with deep dejection of mind that unfitted him for all public duties, a celebrated musician was invited to surprise the king by giving a concert in the neighbouring apartment to his majesty's, with the effect that the king roused himself from his lethargy and resumed his duties. We may readily believe that in soothing power the harp was not inferior to any of the other instruments.
Still, with all its success, it was but a poor method of soothing a troubled spirit compared to the methods that David was afterwards to employ. It dealt chiefly with man's physical nature, it soothed the nervous system, and removed the hindrance which their disorder caused to the action of the powers of the mind. It did not strike at the root of all trouble - alienation from God; it did not attempt to create and apply the only permanent remedy for trouble - trust in a loving Father's care. It was a mere foreshadow, on a comparatively low and earthly ground, of the way in which David, as the Psalmist, was afterwards to provide the true ''oil of joy for the mourner," and to become a guide to the downcast soul from the fearful pit and the miry clay up to the third heaven of joy and peace. The sounds of his harp could only operate by an influence felt alike by saint and sinner in soothing an agitated frame; but with the words of his Psalms, the Divine Spirit, by whose inspiration they were poured out, was in all coming ages to unite Himself, and to use them for showing the sin-burdened soul the true cause of its misery, and for leading it by a holy path, sorrowing yet rejoicing, to the home of its reconciled Father.
It is a painful thing to see any one in overwhelming trouble; it is doubly painful to see kings and others in high places miserable amid all their splendours, helpless amid all their resources. Alas, O spirit of man, what awful trials thou art subject to! Well mayest thou sometimes envy the very animals around thee, which, if they have no such capacities of enjoyment as thou hast, have on the other hand no such capacities of misery. The higher our powers and position, the more awful the anguish when anything goes wrong. Yet hast thou not, O man, a capacity to know that thy misery cannot be remedied till the cause of it is removed? Prodigal son, there is but one way to escape a miserable life. Arise, go to thy Father. See how He is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to men their trespasses. Accept His offers and be at peace. Receive His Spirit and your disorder shall be healed. I own that not even then can we assure you of freedom from grievous sorrows. The best of men in this world have often most grievous sufferings. But they are strengthened to bear them while they last; they are assured that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose; and they know that when ''the earthly house of their tabernacle is dissolved, they have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv10, 13 1Sa_15:10. “It repenteth me.” “The anthropopathic expression for the…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
1Sa_15:10. “It repenteth me.” “The anthropopathic expression for the change of the Divine procedure into the opposite of what the holy and righteous will of God had determined under the condition of holy and righteous conduct by men when on man’s side there has been a change to the opposite of this condition without repentance.” (Erdmann.) See also comments on this verse. “It grieved Samuel and he cried unto the Lord,” etc. Literally “It burned (in) him,” i.e., his wrath was kindled. “Many grave thoughts seem to have presented themselves at once to Samuel and disturbed his mind, when he reflected upon the dishonour which might be heaped upon the name of God, and the occasion which the deposition and rejection of Saul would furnish to wicked men for blaspheming God. For Saul had been anointed by the ministry of Samuel, and he had been chosen by God Himself from all the people, and called by Him to the throne. If, therefore, he was nevertheless deposed, it seemed likely that so much would be detracted from the authority of Samuel and the confidence of the people in his teaching, and moreover that the worship of God would be overturned, and the greatest disturbance ensue; in fact, that universal confusion would break in upon the nation. These were probably the grounds upon which Samuel’s great indignation rested.” (Calvin.) “The object of Saul’s prayer was doubtless not release from the fulfilment of the Divine command, but the exemption of Saul from the sentence of rejection and the forgiveness of his disobedience.” (Erdmann).
Read full note →
1Sa_15:12. “When Samuel rose.” “It does not appear clearly where Samuel was, but probably at his own home.” (Biblical Commentary.) “Carmel.” A city south-east of Hebron, on the mountains of Judah (Jos_15:55), now called Kurmul. “A place.” “Rather, a monument or trophy. The Hebrew word yad means a hand, but we have a certain clue to the meaning, monument or trophy, not only in the verb here used, ‘set up,’ but in 2Sa_18:18, where we are told that the marble pillar which Absalom set up was called Yad Absalom.” (Biblical Commentary.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—1Sa_15:10-12
SAMUEL’S PRAYER
I. There is a strong conviction in the mind of the best men that prayer has an influence upon the Divine mind. This arises, first, from their knowledge of the Divine character and the Divine command. They know that God has commanded His creatures to draw near to Him and pour out their hearts before Him, and they know also that He is infinitely just and good. They therefore conclude that He would not require them to perform any unmeaning act—that if He commands them to pray He is open to influence from their prayers. Secondly, their own past experience and the record of the experience of other praying souls confirms this conviction. If a man has waited upon God in the past and has received into his life the blessings which he has asked of God, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to convince him that there was not a conviction between his prayer and the blessing. And the records of the Church of God in all ages are full of the testimonies of God’s servants that they have cried unto the Lord and He has heard them and given them their heart’s desire. Samuel was evidently governed by a conviction that prayer was a power with God. His own name was to him a constant testimony of the power of prayer—his whole life had been a life of prayer, and he had in times past received blessings, both for himself and others, in answer to his petitions. In looking back, also, upon the history of Israel in the past, he could recall many times when judgments had been turned aside and blessings had descended in answer to the prayer of the people as a whole or to the request of one man on behalf of the entire nation. He would especially remember how, more than once, the prayer of Moses for rebellious and disobedient Israel had prevailed with God, and his whole soul was penetrated by a conviction that prayer had an influence upon the mind of the Eternal. When, therefore, God made known to him the new offence of which Saul had been guilty, and His purpose concerning him, Samuel did not think it useless to supplicate God long and earnestly to avert the sentence which He had passed on the offender or in some degree to mitigate its severity. The best men in all ages have done the same in similar circumstances under the influence of the same strong conviction of the power of prayer.
II. There are characters for whom the prayers of the best men cannot prevail. The man who begs a physician to restore his friend to health must remember that all does not rest with the physician. If his prescriptions were infallible, there must be co-operation on the part of the patient if they are to be of any avail. If he declines to fall in with the healer’s method of cure, he makes his friend’s prayer powerless by his own wilfulness. God Himself implies that Samuel and Moses were most powerful intercessors with Him on behalf of His ancient people (Jer_15:1), yet there were times when even their pleadings failed, not because the Divine arm was shortened or the Divine ear deaf to their intercessions, but because the wilfulness of those for whom they prayed rendered it impossible to answer their supplications. God has often broken through the laws of His material universe in answer to the requests of His servants, but the laws of His moral kingdom are unalterable and cannot be broken through. If Saul in his unrepentant condition had been permitted to go unpunished, a moral law would have been broken. Samuel’s prayers had done much for him in the past, and if there had been any disposition on his part to turn to God and again submit to His will, they might have even now prevailed for him, but his own persistent obstinacy and self-will made even the petitions of this mighty intercessor with God powerless in his case.
III. When the servants of God become convinced that their prayers cannot be answered, they ought to become fully enlisted on the side of God’s purpose although it is not on the side of their desire. Samuel earnestly desired that the purpose of God concerning Saul should not be carried out, and he prayed fervently that his desire might be granted; but when he found that it could not be, although his grief was long and deep (see 1Sa_15:35 and 1Sa_16:1), he gave himself unreservedly into the hand of God, and prepared himself to carry to Saul the Divine message which he delivered with the authority and faithfulness which befitted his prophetic office. The fervent intercessor is changed into the inflexible judge when he becomes convinced that it is not consistent with the Divine will to grant him his heart’s desire. It should be so with God’s servants at all times and under all circumstances. They are not forbidden—they are indeed encouraged—to make known their requests unto God with fervour; they may plead with Him with all their heart for the person or the plan that lies near their heart, but when they become convinced that their prayer can not be answered, they ought to cheerfully accept the position, and be willing to lend themselves, heart and soul, to the purpose and plan of God, although it is directly opposed to their previous desires.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
1Sa_15:11. Wilfulness, the sin of Saul. Saul’s temptation and fall consisted in a certain perverseness of mind, founded on some obscure feelings of self-importance, very commonly observable in human nature, and sometimes called pride—a perverseness which shows itself in a reluctance absolutely to relinquish its own independence of action, in cases where dependence is a duty, and which interferes a little, and alters a little, as if with a view of satisfying its own fancied dignity, though it is afraid altogether to oppose itself to the voice of God. Should this seem at first sight to be a trifling fault, it is more worth while to trace its operation in the history of Saul. If a tree is known by its fruit, it is a great sin.… In contemplating the miserable termination of a history which promised well in the beginning, it should be observed how clearly the failure of the Divine purpose is attributable to man.… No one could be selected in talents and conduct more suitable for maintaining political power at home than the reserved, mysterious monarch whom God gave to His people; none more suitable for striking terror into the surrounding nations than a commander gifted with his coolness and promptness in action. But he fell from his election because of unbelief—because he would take another part, and not the very part which was actually assigned him in the decrees of the Most High.—J. H. Newman.
“Samuel cried unto the Lord all night.” Was this warrantable? It was a mistaken, but surely not a criminal, urgency; for might he not with reason be supposed to receive the dreadful announcement as a frowning barrier over which faith had to wrestle?… He might not arrest the evil of Saul’s fate; the erring monarch must himself be a penitent suppliant ere that can be remedied. He might not keep the crown in the family of Saul; the season of probation was over for that. But he might mitigate the consequences of the sin to Saul and his people. The soul of the king might be brought to repentance and be saved, though with the loss of his dynasty.… Who can tell how much Saul was indebted to that prayer of Samuel for the mercies and escapes and successes of his subsequent career.—Steel.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v10 1 Samuel
1 Samuel
SAUL REJECTED
Read full note →
1Sa 15:10 - 1Sa 15:23.
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 purpose 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 fulfilment of a sentence passed in the times of the Conquest, but not executed then. The terrible old usages 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 recognise 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 king, 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, in 1Sa 15:19, 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, ‘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. ‘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 {1Sa 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! 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 honoured 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 palliations 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 honouring 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! 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 honour 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! 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.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v11 (See Scofield "Zec 8:14").
repenteth
(See Scofield "Zec 8:14").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v10 Samuel’s Reproof
Samuel’s Reproof
v. 10. Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying,
Read full note →
v. 11. It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king, an expression which denotes that God had found it necessary to change His mode of action into the opposite of what He had determined under the condition of holy and righteous conduct of men; for he is turned back from following Me and hath not performed My commandments. Pride and self-will, in the consciousness of his own power in Israel, had caused Saul to disregard the divine charge. And it grieved Samuel, it hurt him bitterly to find that Saul had turned away from the Lord, it kindled a holy anger in his heart; and he cried unto the Lord all night, probably to obtain for Saul forgiveness for his disobedience.
v. 12. And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, setting out to call Saul to account, as the Lord had commanded, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, southeast of Hebron, and, behold, he set him up a place, a monument to commemorate the victory, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal, in the valley of Jordan.
v. 13. And Samuel came to Saul; and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord, a greeting of hypocritical friendliness; I have performed the commandment of the Lord, a calm assurance intended to throw sand into Samuel’s eyes.
v. 14. And Samuel, losing no time in unmasking the hypocrisy of Saul, said, What meaneth, then, this bleating of the sheep in mine ears and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
v. 15. And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites, so much he had to concede, though it appears even here that he wants to put the blame on the people; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, they were the transgressors, while he was blameless, to sacrifice unto the Lord, thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed. The untruth and hypocrisy of this excuse were evident at once, as well as the selfish interests, for the thank-offerings were always combined with sacrificial meals.
v. 16. Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, he should desist from lying excuses, and I will tell thee what the Lord hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
v. 17. And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, for so Saul had described himself when Samuel first met him, 1Sa 9:21, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed thee king over Israel?
v. 18. And the Lord sent thee on a journey and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, who were so persistent in their hostility against Israel and against Jehovah, and fight against them until they be consumed.
v. 19. Wherefore, then, after this plain command, didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, in eager greed, in passionate craving, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord?
v. 20. And Saul said unto Samuel, still persisting in his denial of any blame on his part, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. It was a further hypocritical self-justification.
v. 21. But the people, upon whom Saul again lays all the blame, took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, the firstlings of the devoted things, to sacrifice unto the Lord, thy God, in Gilgal. Saul evaded the plain words of the Lord that everything was to be put under the ban, and that therefore the animals could no longer be used for burnt offerings.
v. 22. And Samuel saith, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? A mechanical worship without true loyalty of the heart is not acceptable to Him. Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams. This principle, of the utter worthlessness of a dead worship, especially when it goes side by side with a lack of obedience to the Lord, has held in the Church of God at all times, and should be considered most carefully by all those whose churchgoing is a matter of mere routine.
v. 23. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, or divination, the service of demons in any form, and stubbornness, in refusing to obey God’s commands, is as iniquity and idolatry, in which the living God is denied and rejected. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king, Saul was abandoned to his pride, selfishness, and wickedness. He who opposes the Word of the Lord in any way, whether by speaking or by doing, thereby denies the true God and is in danger of being rejected.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22 the word of Yahweh came to Samuel, saying, "It
the word of Yahweh came to Samuel, saying, "It
The idiom "the word of Yahweh came to" is used to introduce a special message from God. AT: "Yahweh gave a message to Samuel. He said, 'It" or "Yahweh spoke this message to Samuel: 'It" (See: Idiom)
Read full note →
It grieves me
"I am sorry"
he has turned back from following me
Saul not obeying Yahweh is spoken of as if Saul had physically turned away from walking behind God. AT: "he has stopped following me" (See: Metaphor)
has not performed my commandments
"has not obeyed what I commanded him to do." Saul was to completely destroy everything and everyone. God had placed a ban on the Amalekites. But Saul permitted some livestock to live.
Samuel was angry
Possible meanings are 1) Samuel was angry with Saul for his disobedience or 2) Samuel was disturbed.
translationWords
turn
command
anger
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23 15:9 Saul and his men directly disobeyed the Lord’s…
15:9 Saul and his men directly disobeyed the Lord’s command to “completely destroy” the Amalekites (15:3). Though the entire army participated in the disobedience of God’s command, Saul alone was responsible as their leader.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.