Chapter 15

1 Samuel sendeth Saul to destroy Amalek. 6 Saul favoureth the Kenites. 8 He spareth Agag and the best of the spoil. 10 Samuel denounceth unto Saul, commending and excusing himself, God’s rejection of him for his disobedience. 24 Saul’s humiliation. 32 Samuel killeth Agag. 34 Samuel and Saul part.

1. Hearken thou. Literally, “hear,” with the additional thought of obeying. Samuel implied that Saul had once heard the specifications laid down regarding his presence at Gilgal, but was not obedient. Now he was to be tested again to see whether he would carry out the wishes of God, or again yield to his own desires.

2. I remember. Literally, “I have given attention to.” The Amalekites were a nomadic race that inhabited the desert region between Palestine and Egypt. Their livelihood seems to have been secured chiefly by predatory raids on neighboring tribes (see on Gen. 36:12). They had made an unprovoked attack on the children of Israel in the vicinity of Mt. Sinai (Ex. 17:8–16). After that battle Moses called the name of the place “Jehovah-nissi,” saying, “The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” In the prophecy of Balaam, Amalek is called “the first of the nations,” meaning that they were the first to war against Israel, but Balaam added that “in the end he shall come to destruction” (Num. 24:20, RSV).

Without doubt the Amalekites had more recently been raiding the southern part of Judah, in the vicinity of Beersheba, and this may have been one reason for the elders of that region asking for a king (see ch. 8:1–5). As Joshua was instructed to defend the Gibeonites against the unprovoked attack of the five kings of the southern confederacy, so Saul was commissioned to relieve Israel from the attacks of the Amalekites. In Joshua’s day the killing of the five kings brought peace. Had Saul carried out the plan of God, Israel would probably have had peace from that quarter much longer than they actually had. The reference to the Amalekites in ch. 14:48 may refer to this campaign, for vs. 49–52 are obviously parenthetical.

3. Utterly destroy. Literally, “you [plural] utterly destroy.” The responsibility for the ban on the possessions of the Amalekites rested on the members of the army themselves. But the verb “smite,” in the command, “smite Amalek,” is in the second person singular, placing the responsibility for the extermination of the Amalekites on Saul personally as king of Israel. The Hebrew word charam, translated “destroy,” means “to ban,” “to devote,” and thus “to exterminate.” When a country was put under the ban, everything belonging to that nation was looked upon as accursed. The people were to be killed, also the cattle and other living things, but such things as silver and gold were to be brought into the treasury of the Lord (see Joshua 6:17–19). A similar custom existed among other nations of the Near East in ancient times.

4. In Telaim. Some scholars identify this site with the Telem of Joshua 15:24, a town on the southern border of Judah close to the Amalekite territory, but nothing definite is known as to its location. Telaim served as the base for the campaign against the Amalekites, as Bezek had for that against the Ammonites (see on 1 Sam. 11:8). It is strange that only five per cent of Saul’s army came from Judah, in view of the fact that tribe suffered most at the hands of the Amalekites.

6. The Kenites. Members of the family into which Moses married are referred to both as Midianites (Num. 10:29) and as Kenites (Judges 1:16) either because both names refer to the same family stock or because two families had united. Some commentators have identified the Kenites as descendants of Kenaz, a grandson of Esau by Eliphaz, but nothing certain is known of their origin (see on Gen. 15:19). The Kenites are to be distinguished from the Kenizzites (Gen. 15:19). The Midianites, and thus probably the Kenites also, were descendants of Abraham by his wife Keturah (see on Ex. 2:16). The Amalekites were descendants of Esau (see on Gen. 36:12) and therefore blood relatives of both the Kenites and the Israelites. Some of the Kenites, or Midianites, accompanied the children of Israel to the Promised Land (see on Num. 10:29–32) and received an inheritance there, among the people of Judah (Judges 1:16) and far to the north in Naphtali (Judges 4:10, 11). It may be that the Kenites here referred to were descendants of those who had settled in the southern part of Judah, adjacent to Amalekite territory, and had intermarried with the Amalekites (see 1 Sam. 27:10).

7. Havilah. The location of Havilah is unknown. Some scholars think it refers to a “sand land”; others, to “sandy dunes.” From the river of Egypt (see on Num. 34:5), Judah’s southwestern boundary, west toward Egypt, is at the present time nothing but a barren waste of sand. The word shur means “wall,” which, it is thought, refers to the wall of fortresses built by the Egyptian kings along their eastern border from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean for protection against Asiatic invasions (see on Ex. 2:15; 13:20; 14:2). The desert just east of Egypt is called “the wilderness of Shur” (see on Gen. 16:7; 25:18; Ex. 15:22). Inasmuch as the Amalekites still inhabited the same southern district in David’s day (1 Sam. 30), it is probable that the “city of Amalek” (ch. 15:5) was the residence of Agag the king, and that Saul’s army destroyed that site and scattered the Amalekites far into the desert of Shur. This raid against the Amalekites probably differed but little from their raids on Israel both before and after Saul’s day (Judges 6:3–5; 10:12; 1 Sam. 30:1–18). Saul was apparently content with an incomplete campaign. He had captured Agag, and in ancient times whenever a king was taken his land seems to have been considered subjugated (see Joshua 12:7–24).

8. Agag. Meaning, perhaps, “flaming” or “violent.” It is possible, though by no means certain, that this was a title assumed by Amalekite kings similar to that of Pharaoh among the Egyptians. According to Josephus (Antiquities xi. 6. 5), Haman the Agagite was a descendant of Agag the Amalekite in the 16th generation (see on Esther 3:1).

Utterly destroyed. That is, the Amalekites living in the vicinity of Saul’s attack. The Amalekites were scattered over a wide area of the Sinai Peninsula, the Negeb, and northern Arabia (see on Gen. 36:12). It would not have been possible for Saul to defeat all the Amalekites on this short expedition. That he did not do so is evident from the fact that after this time David carried out further campaigns against them (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:1–20; 2 Sam. 8:12). It was not until the time of Hezekiah that they were finally exterminated (1 Chron. 4:42, 43).

9. Every thing that was vile. By destroying what was not worth saving anyway, Saul and his men contented themselves that they had obeyed God’s command to “utterly destroy all that they have” (v. 3). At the same time the victorious Israelites saved “all that was good.”

11. It repenteth me. See on Gen. 6:6; Ex. 32:14; Judges 2:18. Many have found it hard to reconcile this statement with 1 Sam. 15:29, that God “will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.” Both verbs are forms of nacham, which Gesenius defines as “to lament” or “to grieve” because of the misery of others, and hence “to pity”; also, because of one’s own actions, “to repent.” In no place does the Bible say that man repents of the good he may do—but only of the evil. Yet God is said to repent of the good He does as well as of the evil (see Jer. 18:7–10). “Man’s repentance implies a change of mind. God’s repentance implies a change of circumstances and relations” (PP 630). The word nacham should be translated in such a way as to bring out this thought.

Under the principle of free choice God makes of no man a mere machine to carry out the divine purposes. True, these purposes will be carried out eventually (Isa. 46:10), but the individual or nation called to carry them out does not therefore forfeit the privilege of choosing to comply with or to reject God’s proposals (see Ed 178). He who at first says, “I will not go,” but changes his mind, is far better than he who promises to go but later decides not to (see Matt. 21:28–32). In each case, if the instrument of God’s desire proves unworthy, God “grieves” over the individual’s decision but permits him to pursue the course he has chosen and to reap the seed he has sown. Saul’s decision to follow his own desires did not in the least thwart God’s eternal purpose, but it did provide an opportunity for God to demonstrate His long-suffering, in permitting Saul to remain king. The natural sequence of cause and effect is one of the great lessons to be learned by man in this great controversy between good and evil.

It grieved Samuel. Literally, “it kindled Samuel.” Where this verb is used in connection with the word “anger,” it is usually translated, his “anger was kindled.” This is the only instance in the OT where the verb charah is translated “grieved.” It is incorrect to translate, “Samuel was angry,” for the further statement is added that Samuel “cried unto the Lord all night” (see v. 11). The prophet was so disappointed and perplexed that he sought the Lord with all his heart to learn the way out of the deplorable situation.

12. Carmel. Not the Mt. Carmel where Elijah met the prophets of Baal, but a town 7 1/4 mi. (11.6 km.) south by east of Hebron, where David encountered Nabal (ch. 25).

Set him up a place. Here Saul “set up a monument” (RSV) to his victory, and then went on to Gilgal near Jericho, perhaps to redeem the disgrace he had experienced there (ch. 13:11–16).

13. I have performed. With an apparent show of great respect, Saul waited expectantly to receive Samuel’s commendation. Like men all through the course of history, Saul was ready to believe that he had carried out the commission given him, merely by performing that part of it that was agreeable to him. He had made a foray against the traditional enemies of Israel, and had returned with Agag as proof of the accomplishment of his mission. The victory monument erected in Carmel is evidence of his self-satisfaction. Like Saul of Tarsus, Saul the son of Kish had no doubt come to believe that acts of his own choosing were performed in harmony with God’s will. But here, of course, similarity between the two ends, for the one knew the will of God and did it not, but the other acted in ignorance (1 Tim. 1:13).

14. This bleating. Though Saul’s conscience appeared clear at the moment, the bleating of the flocks spoke forth eloquently of Saul’s disobedience and of the fact that his conscience was not dependable. There is such a thing as having the conscience seared with a hot iron (1 Tim. 4:2), instead of having it purged from dead works (Heb. 9:14) and void of offense (Acts 24:16). Since his anointing, Saul had demonstrated many noble traits of character, and Samuel loved him, much as Jesus loved Judas. But the acquisition of power had changed the man into a despot who would brook no interference. While he was in the very act of proclaiming his obedience, the flocks were loudly proclaiming his disobedience.

15. People spared the best. Like Adam and Eve, Saul sought to blame someone else. Would not the people now have been as loyal to Saul’s command to destroy everything belonging to the Amalekites as they had been previously in abstaining from food on the day they put the Philistines to rout (ch. 14:24)? For anyone of Saul’s nature and intelligence to seek refuge in such an excuse is clear evidence of spiritual breakdown.

17. When thou wast little. A literal translation of the Hebrew of v. 17 permits either the rendering, “Though [or, when] you [were] little in your own sight, [were] you not [made] head of the tribes of Israel?” or, “Though you [are] little in your own sight, [are] you not head of the tribes of Israel?” In the Hebrew text the verbs are implied rather than expressed, and translation into English requires that they be supplied. Assuming that Samuel here refers to a past experience, the KJV uses the past tense, whereas the RSV and other modern translations consider that he is thinking of Saul’s statement of v. 15, and so addresses him in terms of the present. The KJV understands Samuel to be drawing a contrast between Saul’s previous humility and present pride, but the RSV and others take the statement as a contrast between Saul’s expressed subordination to the will of the people (v. 15), a false humility, and his divine appointment as their leader (v. 17).

The phrase, “the Lord anointed thee king over Israel,” appears to be simply a repetition of the preceding statement, “Wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel?” Furthermore, Saul had accounted for his conduct on the basis that it was “the people” who had kept “the best” of the spoils—implying that he had not been able to restrain them (v. 15). According to the RSV, Samuel challenged Saul’s evasion of responsibility—“you are little in your own eyes,” that is, unable to exercise effective control over your men—with a solemn affirmation that he was their leader. In vs. 17–19 (see vs. 1–3) Samuel then proceeds to remind Saul of his personal responsibility in the matter: The Lord had (1) anointed him king, and thus leader of all Israel, (2) sent him against the Amalekites, and (3) commanded him to destroy them utterly. Why had he not obeyed? The question of obedience is ever central in our relations to the God of heaven.

According to the KJV, Samuel was here reminding Saul of his statement at the time of his anointing (ch. 9:21), when from a humble position he had been elevated to be the leader of Israel. It is not God’s plan to place His servants where they cannot be tempted, nor is it His plan to thrust them into the midst of temptation, where, when they yield, He must forgive and then permit them to continue in sin. Rather, it is His desire so to reclaim them that they can win the battle against sin here and now. The Holy Spirit led Christ into the wilderness to be tempted of Satan (Mark 1:12). Saul was given unmistakable evidence that the Lord loved him and would be his constant helper. He could never charge that God, knowing his egotistical nature, failed to give him every opportunity to make good and to overcome his bad traits. The fact that God gave him another heart (1 Sam. 10:9) did not mean that Saul could not return to his old manner of life if he so desired. Would Saul exalt himself? Then God must humble him.

20. Yea, I have obeyed. Only a perverse, obdurate heart would attempt to pawn off disobedience as obedience. By making this claim Saul gave evidence of how far he had wandered from the pathway of right. It was when Eve “saw” that the fruit of the forbidden tree was “good for food, … pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” that “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat” (Gen. 3:6). It is when a person convinces himself that what God has clearly marked as moral poison is desirable for the table of more abundant living that he forswears allegiance to God and swears allegiance to the devil. When what God has said is all wrong appears to be all right, a man may know that he has set foot on forbidden ground, and is without protection against the hypnotic allurements of the tempter. He has blinded his own spiritual eyesight and hardened his own heart (see Eph. 4:30; see on Ex. 4:21).

Christ warned His disciples that “the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service” (John 16:2). From the days of the early church (Acts 26:9–11; cf. 1 Tim. 1:13) to the present, the most severe persecutions against the servants of God have been waged in the name of religion. After the close of probation evil men will continue the forms of religion with apparent zeal for God (GC 615). It is the devil’s cleverest device so to camouflage error that it passes for truth. For this reason the True Witness to the Laodiceans, in whose time the master counterfeiter will put forth his most successful efforts, counsels them to make use of spiritual “eyesalve” that they may “see” (Rev. 3:18) their own true condition, that they may distinguish between truth and error, that they may discern the wiles of Satan and shun them, that they may detect sin and abhor it, and that they may see the truth and obey it (5T 233). Otherwise, like the Jews of Christ’s time, they will be found accepting as doctrine the commandments of men (see Matt. 15:9).

Brought Agag. How preposterous, but true! Saul offers his supreme act of disobedience as proof of full and complete compliance with the command of God through the prophet Samuel. In his spiritually blinded state he now took wrong for right, and felt aggrieved that Samuel should take exception to what he personally considered—and what in a sense was—a very great victory (see PP 629).

21. Things which should have been utterly destroyed. This whole clause is from the one Hebrew word cherem, “the devoted things,” “the dedicated things,” “the accursed things,” or “things devoted to destruction” (RSV). Cherem is from the verb charam, “to prohibit to common use,” “to consecrate to God,” “to extirpate.” Achan appropriated to his personal use “the accursed thing [cherem]” (Joshua 7:1, 11, 13, 15; cf. ch. 6:17, 18), which included silver and gold (Joshua 7:21) reserved for the sanctuary service (Joshua 6:19). The fact that a person or thing was “accursed,” or “devoted,” did not necessarily mean that it was to be destroyed; but only that it was to be disposed of precisely as God should direct. In contrast with the silver and gold, all else in the city was to be utterly destroyed (Joshua 6:21)—yet they too had been “accursed,” or reserved, “to the Lord” (Joshua 6:17). The same Hebrew word, cherem, is also used of offerings “devoted” to sacred use (see Lev. 27:21, 28, 29; Num. 18:14; etc.).

Saul’s statement concerning “the things which should have been utterly destroyed,” or literally, “the devoted things,” takes on new meaning in the light of Bible usage of the Hebrew word thus translated. Samuel had instructed Saul to “utterly destroy [charam]” the Amalekites and all their possessions by slaying them. They were not simply “dedicated”; they were “dedicated to destruction.” Saul apparently reasoned that it was his privilege to decide how the divine command was to be carried out.

Saul no doubt told the truth when he said that “the people” wanted to save the best of the flocks and herds. They were not permitted to take the Amalekite flocks and herds for themselves. But they could enrich themselves by substituting Amalekite animals for those of their own that would otherwise have been required for sacrificial use (PP 629). Saul simply approved of the suggestion as it came to him, and thus assumed the right of interpreting the command of God as he saw fit. For his part, Saul was not interested in the cattle; of these he no doubt had enough and to spare. But if he should return with a conquered king—in keeping with the custom of the day—he would be able to present before all Israel tangible evidence of his military prowess, and would greatly enhance his prestige. Saul no doubt planned on the public execution of Agag after presenting him as an exhibit of his own skill as a warrior. But, instructed of God, Samuel deprived Saul of the planned exhibition by performing the execution himself.

Saul probably reasoned that he would be obeying the command of God with respect to both the cattle and the king, and at the same time adding to the wealth of his subjects and to his own renown. He would accomplish the will of God in a way of his own choosing. Ultimately, both king and animals would be slain; but in the meantime he and his people would profit from them. Herein lay Saul’s weakness of character—while pretending to serve God, he really served his own interests first and those of God last. It was no doubt for this very reason that in sending Saul against the Amalekites with the command to “devote” them and all their possessions, God specified the means whereby they were to be “devoted”—death.

Saul failed in this great final test of character. Even Samuel, who had spent the night in prayer to God on Saul’s behalf, that the sentence of rejection might be reversed (PP 630), was filled with indignation when he saw the evidence of Saul’s rebellion (PP 631). Because Saul had forsaken the Lord, Heaven abandoned him to the course of his own choosing; and Samuel, for his part, “came no more to see Saul until the day of his death” (v. 35). Saul had completely disqualified himself as king by submitting to the desires of the people, by laying upon them the blame for his own wrong decision, and by seeking to assume to himself honor that in fact belonged to God.

In Gilgal. Though not the residence of Saul, Gilgal seems to have been in some respects the functional capital of the Hebrew monarchy. It marked the site of Israel’s first encampment after the crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 4:19) and the military headquarters for the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 10:15; etc.). It was here that the actual division of the land was carried out (Joshua 14:6 to 17:18). When the original conquest of the land was completed, about six or seven years after the crossing of the Jordan, the ark was moved from Gilgal to Shiloh (Joshua 18:1). At that time Joshua resided at “Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim” (Joshua 19:49, 50).

The sanctuary service at Shiloh was discontinued when the ark was taken by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11; Ps. 78:60; PP 609) and the city of Shiloh itself destroyed (see Jer. 26:6, 9). The ark was later returned, first to Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. 6:7–15) and then to Kirjath-jearim (ch. 7:1), where it remained until David moved it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2–12; cf. Joshua 15:9, 60). The worship of God was thus in a sense decentralized, though Samuel offered sacrifices in various places (PP 609), probably including Gilgal (1 Sam. 7:16). It was at Gilgal that Samuel assembled Israel to confirm Saul as king after his victory at Jabeshgilead (1 Sam. 11:14, 15). Here also forces were mustered for the attack on the Philistine garrison at Michmash (1 Sam. 13:4). It may also have been the base for the campaign against the Amalekites, as seems to be implied in Saul’s proposal to return there to offer sacrifices to God.

22. Hath the Lord. Impelled by the Holy Spirit, Samuel gave utterance to this profound truth that was to echo and re-echo down through ages to come (see Ps. 51:16–19; Isa. 1:11; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6–8; etc.).

23. Rejected thee. Here the reason is clearly stated for a change in status between God and man—“because thou hast rejected.” When man chooses to follow his own way, God is obliged to readjust conditions to meet the situation. When Israel wanted a king, God gave them opportunity to test out the workability of such a plan. The very fact that God permitted Saul to continue as king shows that He had not forsaken him. If Saul would not follow God, he would have to develop his own idea of kingship without the help of divine counsel—not because God was unwilling to guide him, but because he refused to accept guidance.

24. I have sinned. Prior to Samuel’s announcement that God had rejected Saul as king (v. 23), Saul stoutly defended his course of action. Only when sentence was pronounced and the penalty became known was he willing to admit erring from the divine command. Saul failed to manifest the evidence of a changed life that accompanies “godly sorrow”; his was “the sorrow of the world” (2 Cor. 7:9–11). It was not the sincere desire to do right that impelled this admission, but the fear of forfeiting his kingdom. It was only when confronted with this prospect that he feigned repentance, with the objective of saving, if possible, his position as king. Human praise meant more to him than divine approval.

25. Pardon my sin. How different was this request from that of the people at Mizpah when they cried out, “We have sinned against the Lord. … Cease not to cry unto the Lord our God for us” (ch. 7:6–8). Was his sin against Samuel or against the Lord? Was he as concerned with the change of heart necessary on his part as he was with the loss of face before the people, in the event he lost the kingdom? His future actions were to reveal clearly the true reasons for his conduct.

26. I will not return. Samuel, feeling that God had rejected Saul, at first refused to worship with the king. Humanly speaking, he would have nothing to do with a man who appreciated so dimly what God had done for him. Samuel’s attitude was simply a reflection of the attitude of God. If the Lord would have no further dealings with Saul (see ch. 28:6), neither could Samuel, the Lord’s representative (ch. 15:35), lest such association be construed as evidence of divine approval.

28. Hath given it. The anointing of David and his coronation, though yet future, are spoken of by God as if already accomplished. Saul had irretrievably disqualified himself to serve as king, and God’s decision with regard to him was irrevocable. In the will and purpose of God the kingdom had already been given to someone else. Nothing Saul might do now by way of worship (v. 30) would avail to change the sentence. Even prayer would not change it (see Jer. 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; PP 630). To be sure, Saul’s rejection as king did not necessarily imply that his personal probation had closed, and that God would refuse to accept him as an individual. He might yet repent personally and be converted. Had Saul been willing at this time to relinquish the throne and to live henceforth as a private individual, he might have found salvation. But it was clear that he could not use the office of king in harmony with the divine will.

Better than thou. So far as the record goes, Saul’s only mistake up to this time was that at Gilgal (ch. 13:8–14). There was no blot on his record as in the case of David with Bath-sheba and Uriah the Hittite. Both men were great sinners; the difference between them lay in the fact that, when his sins were pointed out Saul justified his course of action (chs. 13:11, 12; 15:20), whereas David sincerely repented of his sins (2 Sam. 12:13; Ps. 51).

29. The Strength of Israel. This title for God appears only in this one place in the OT. The word translated “strength” is nesach, which is from the verb nasach, “to be pre-eminent,” “to be enduring.” In the setting here used this appellation for God is most appropriate. Nesach is usually translated “for ever,” as in 2 Sam. 2:26; Ps. 52:5; etc.

Repent. On God’s “repenting” see on Gen. 6:6; Ex. 32:14; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11.

30. That I may worship. To Saul the forms of worship were important only as a means of securing to himself the loyalty of the people. It was his purpose to represent his own policies as originating with God, in order that the people should come to believe that in following him they were doing God’s will. Religion was thus debased to serve the ends of civil power, for Saul purposed to use God as a means to his own ends.

31. Samuel turned again. There were perhaps two reasons why Samuel changed his mind: (1) He wanted to do everything possible to win Saul as an individual. (2) His known disapproval of Saul might lead some of the discontented spirits in Israel to use this as an excuse to revolt. Orderly government must continue even if the king had rejected God’s leadership in order to have his own way.

33. Samuel hewed Agag. According to the civil code given Israel (Ex. 21:23, 24), Agag was guilty of death, and Samuel executed him “before the Lord,” even as Elijah later slew the prophets of Baal at Carmel, under the law of blasphemy (Lev. 24:11, 16). By slaying Agag, Samuel thwarted Saul’s purpose to display the king as testimony to his own supposed clever leadership.

35. Samuel came no more. See on v. 26; see also ch. 16:14.

Samuel mourned. Reluctant as Samuel may have been in the first place to give Israel a king, once the king had been selected, Samuel remained loyal to him in spite of his mistakes. To Samuel, as later to David, Saul was “the Lord’s anointed” (ch. 24:10). Samuel’s grief over the course Saul had chosen (ch. 15:11; PP 630) is evidence of the sincerity of Samuel’s solicitude for him.

Ellen G. White comments

1–35PP 627–636

2, 3 PP 627, 659

3     4T 146

6     PP 628

7–9PP 629

8, 9 PP 659

9     4T 146

11   PP 630

13, 14  5T 88

13–15PP 630; 4T 146

16, 17  PP 631; 4T 146

17   1T 707; 2T 297

18–21PP 631; 4T 146

22   DA 590; PP 631, 634; TM 241; 2T 653; 3T 57, 116; 4T 84

22, 23  1T 323; 4T 146

23   PP 635; 3T 357

23–25PP 631

26, 28  PP 632

28   Ed 254

29   PP 630

30–34PP 632