1Sa 15:16-35 | KD | STEP | Samuel therefore bade him be silent. הרף, “ leave off ,” excusing thyself any further. “ I will tell thee what Jehovah hath said to me this night .” (The Chethibh ויּאמרוּ is evidently a copyist’s error for ויּאמר.) “ Is it not true, when thou wast little in thine eyes (a reference to Saul’s own words, ), thou didst become head of the tribes of Israel? and Jehovah anointed thee king over Israel, and Jehovah sent thee on the way, and said, Go and ban the sinners, the Amalekites, and make war against them, until thou exterminatest them. And wherefore hast thou nor hearkened to the voice of Jehovah, and hast fallen upon the booty ,” etc.? (תּעט, see at 1Sa 14:32.) Even after this Saul wanted to justify himself, and to throw the blame of sparing the cattle upon the people.

‏ 1 Samuel 15:16-35

Samuel therefore bade him be silent. הרף, “leave off,” excusing thyself any further. “I will tell thee what Jehovah hath said to me this night.” (The Chethibh ויּאמרוּ is evidently a copyist’s error for ויּאמר.) “Is it not true, when thou wast little in thine eyes (a reference to Saul’s own words, 1Sa 9:21), thou didst become head of the tribes of Israel? and Jehovah anointed thee king over Israel, and Jehovah sent thee on the way, and said, Go and ban the sinners, the Amalekites, and make war against them, until thou exterminatest them. And wherefore hast thou nor hearkened to the voice of Jehovah, and hast fallen upon the booty,” etc.? (תּעט, see at 1Sa 14:32.)

Even after this Saul wanted to justify himself, and to throw the blame of sparing the cattle upon the people. 1Sa 15:20

“Yea, I have hearkened to the voice of Jehovah (אשׁר serving, like כּי ekil , to introduce the reply: here it is used in the sense of asseveration, utique, yea), and have brought Agag the king of the Amalekites, and banned Amalek.” Bringing Agag he mentioned probably as a practical proof that he had carried out the war of extermination against the Amalekites. 1Sa 15:21

Even the sparing of the cattle he endeavoured to defend as the fulfilment of a religious duty. The people had taken sheep and oxen from the booty, “as firstlings of the ban,” to sacrifice to Jehovah. Sacrificing the best of the booty taken in war as an offering of first-fruits to the Lord, was not indeed prescribed in the law, but was a praiseworthy sign of piety, by which all honour was rendered to the Lord as the giver of the victory (see Num 31:48.). This, Saul meant to say, was what the people had done on the present occasion; only he overlooked the fact, that what was banned to the Lord could not be offered to Him as a burnt-offering, because, being most holy, it belonged to Him already (Lev 27:29), and according to Deu 13:16, was to be put to death, as Samuel had expressly said to Saul (1Sa 15:3). 1Sa 15:22-23

Without entering, therefore, into any discussion of the meaning of the ban, as Saul only wanted to cover over his own wrong-doings by giving this turn to the affair, Samuel put a stop to any further excuses, by saying, “Hath Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah? (i.e., in obedience to His word.) Behold, hearing (obeying) is better than slain-offerings, attending better than fat of rams.” By saying this, Samuel did not reject sacrifices as worthless; he did not say that God took no pleasure in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings, but simply compared sacrifice with obedience to the command of God, and pronounced the latter of greater worth than the former. “It was as much as to say that the sum and substance of divine worship consisted in obedience, with which it should always begin, and that sacrifices were, so to speak, simple appendices, the force and worth of which were not so great as of obedience to the precepts of God” (Calvin). But it necessarily follows that sacrifices without obedience to the commandments of God are utterly worthless; in fact, are displeasing to God, as Psa 50:8., Isa 1:11., Isa 66:3, Jer 6:20, and all the prophets, distinctly affirm. There was no necessity, however, to carry out this truth any further. To tear off the cloak of hypocrisy, with which Saul hoped to cover his disobedience, it was quite enough to affirm that God’s first demand was obedience, and that observing His word was better than sacrifice; because, as the Berleb. Bible puts it, “in sacrifices a man offers only the strange flesh of irrational animals, whereas in obedience he offers his own will, which is rational or spiritual worship” (Rom 12:8). This spiritual worship was shadowed forth in the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament. In the sacrificial animal the Israelite was to give up and sanctify his own person and life to the Lord. (For an examination of the meaning of the different sacrifices, see Pent. pp. 505ff., and Keil’s Bibl Archäol. §41ff.) But if this were the design of the sacrifices, it was clear enough that God did not desire the animal sacrifice in itself, but first and chiefly obedience to His own word. In 1Sa 15:22, טּוב is not to be connected as an adjective with זבח, “more than good sacrifice,” as the Sept. and Thenius render it; it is rather to be taken as a predicate, “better than slain-offerings,” and מזּבח is placed first simply for the sake of emphasis. Any contrast between good and bad sacrifices, such as the former construction would introduce into the words, is not only foreign to the context, but also opposed to the parallelism. For אילים חלב does not mean fat rams, but the fat of rams; the fat portions taken from the ram, which were placed upon the altar in the case of the slain-offerings, and for which חלב is the technical expression (compare Lev 3:9, Lev 3:16, with Lev 3:4, Lev 3:11, etc.). “For,” continued Samuel (1Sa 15:23), “rebellion is the sin of soothsaying, and opposition is heathenism and idolatry.” מרי and הפצר are the subjects, and synonymous in their meaning. קסם חטּאת, the sin of soothsaying, i.e., of divination in connection with the worship of idolatrous and demoniacal powers. In the second clause idols are mentioned instead of idolatry, and compared to resistance, but without any particle of comparison. Opposition is keeping idols and teraphim, i.e., it is like worshipping idols and teraphim. און, nothingness, then an idol or image (vid., Isa 66:3; Hos 4:15; Hos 10:5, Hos 10:8). On the teraphim as domestic and oracular deities, see at Gen 31:19. Opposition to God is compared by Samuel to soothsaying and oracles, because idolatry was manifested in both of them. All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God. “Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He hath rejected thee, that thou mayst be no longer king.” ממּלך = מלך מהיוה (1Sa 15:26), away from being king. 1Sa 15:24-25

This sentence made so powerful an impression upon Saul, that he confessed, “I have sinned: for I have transgressed the command of the Lord and thy words, because I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice.” But these last words, with which he endeavoured to make his sin appear as small as possible, show that the consciousness of his guilt did not go very deep. Even if the people had really desired that the best of the cattle should be spared, he ought not as king to have given his consent to their wish, since God had commanded that they should all be banned (i.e., destroyed); and even though he has yielded from weakness, this weakness could not lessen his guilt before God. This repentance, therefore, was rather the effect of alarm at the rejection which had been announced to him, than the fruit of any genuine consciousness of sin. “It was not true and serious repentance, or the result of genuine sorrow of heart because he had offended God, but was merely repentance of the lips arising from fear of losing the kingdom, and of incurring public disgrace” (C. v. Lapide). This is apparent even from 1Sa 15:25, but still more from 1Sa 15:30. In 1Sa 15:25 he not only entreats Samuel for the forgiveness of his sin, but says, “Return with me, that I may pray to the Lord.” The שׁוּב presupposes that Samuel was about to go away after the executing his commission. Saul entreated him to remain that he might pray, i.e., not only in order to obtain for him the forgiveness of his sin through his intercession, but, according to 1Sa 15:30, to show him honour before the elders of the people and before Israel, that his rejection might not be known. 1Sa 15:26-29

This request Samuel refused, repeating at the same time the sentence of rejection, and turned to depart. “Then Saul laid hold of the lappet of his mantle (i.e., his upper garment), and it tore” (lit. was torn off). That the Niphal ויּקּרע is correct, and is not to be altered into אתהּ ויּקרע, “Saul tore off the lappet,” according to the rendering of the lxx, as Thenius supposes, is evident from the explanation which Samuel gave of the occurrence (1Sa 15:28): “Jehovah hath torn the sovereignty of Israel from thee to-day, and given it to thy neighbour, who is better than thou.” As Saul was about to hold back the prophet by force, that he might obtain from him a revocation of the divine sentence, the tearing of the mantle, which took place accidentally, and evidently without any such intention on the part of Saul, was to serve as a sign of the rending away of the sovereignty from him. Samuel did not yet know to whom Jehovah would give it; he therefore used the expression לרעך, as רע is applied to any one with whom a person associates. To confirm his own words, he adds in 1Sa 15:29 : “And also the Trust of Israel doth not lie and doth not repent, for He is not a man to repent.” נצח signifies constancy, endurance, then confidence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant. This meaning is to be retained here, where the word is used as a name for God, and not the meaning gloria, which is taken in 1Ch 29:11 from the Aramaean usage of speech, and would be altogether unsuitable here, where the context suggests the idea of unchangeableness. For a man’s repentance or regret arises from his changeableness, from the fluctuations in his desires and actions. This is never the case with God; consequently He is ישׂראל נצח, the unchangeable One, in whom Israel can trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or repent of His purposes. These words are spoken θεοπρεπῶς (theomorphically), whereas in 1Sa 15:11 and other passages, which speak of God as repenting, the words are to be understood ἀνθρωποπαθῶς (anthropomorphically; cf. Num 23:19). 1Sa 15:30-31

After this declaration as to the irrevocable character of the determination of God to reject Saul, Samuel yielded to the renewed entreaty of Saul, that he would honour him by his presence before the elders and the people, and remained whilst Saul worshipped, not merely “for the purpose of preserving the outward order until a new king should take his place” (O. v. Gerlach), but also to carry out the ban upon Agag, whom Saul had spared. 1Sa 15:32

After Saul had prayed, Samuel directed him to bring Agag the king of the Amalekites. Agag came מעדנּת, i.e., in a contented and joyous state of mind, and said (in his heart), “Surely the bitterness of death is vanished,” not from any special pleasure at the thought of death, or from a heroic contempt of death, but because he thought that his life was to be granted him, as he had not been put to death at once, and was now about to be presented to the prophet (Clericus). 1Sa 15:33

But Samuel pronounced the sentence of death upon him: “As thy sword hath made women childless, so be thy mother childless before women!” מנּשׁים is to be understood as a comparative: more childless than (other) women, i.e., the most childless of women, namely, because her son was the king. From these words of Samuel, it is very evident that Agag had carried on his wars with great cruelty, and had therefore forfeited his life according to the lex talionis. Samuel then hewed him in pieces “before the Lord at Gilgal,” i.e., before the altar of Jehovah there; for the slaying of Agag being the execution of the ban, was an act performed for the glory of God. 1Sa 15:34-35

After the prophet had thus maintained the rights of Jehovah in the presence of Saul, and carried out the ban upon Agag, he returned to his own home at Ramah; and Saul went to his house at Gibeah. From that time forward Samuel broke off all intercourse with the king whom Jehovah had rejected. “For Samuel was grieved for Saul, and it repented the Lord that he had made Saul king,” i.e., because Samuel had loved Saul on account of his previous election; and yet, as Jehovah had rejected him unconditionally, he felt that he was precluded from doing anything to effect a change of heart in Saul, and his reinstatement as king.