Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 Samuel 15:1 - 15:35
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
FINAL REJECTION OF SAUL (1Sa_15:1-35.)
1Sa_15:1
Samuel also said. Better literally, "And Samuel said." There is no note of time, but probably a considerable interval elapsed before this second trial of Saul was made. God does not finally reject a man until, after repeated opportunities for repentance, he finally proves obdurate. David committed worse crimes than Saul, but he had a tender conscience, and each fall was followed by deep and earnest sorrow. Saul sinned and repented not. Just, then, as Eli had a first warning, which, though apparently unconditional in its terms (1Sa_2:27-36), was really a call to repentance, and was only made irrevocable by his persistence for many years in the same sins (1Sa_3:11-14), so was it with Saul. The prophet's words in 1Sa_13:13, 1Sa_13:14 were a stern warning, and had Saul taken them to heart, God would have forgiven him his sin. He repented not, but repeated the offence, and so the sentence was confirmed. When, then, critics say that we have two accounts of Saul's rejection, and that he is represented as having been set aside first for one reason and then for another, their objection arises entirely from a false view of God's dealings with mankind. Alike promises and threatenings, blessings and punishments are conditional; for there is no heathen fatalism in Holy Scripture, but mercy waiting to triumph over justice. God, then, was not willing lightly to cast away so noble an instrument as Saul. His first sin too had been committed when he was new in the kingdom, and in a position of danger and difficulty. He waits, therefore, till Saul has had some years of success and power, and his character has developed itself, and is taking its permanent form; and then again gives him a trial in order to test his fitness to be a theocratic king. The interest, then, of this chapter lies in the unfolding of Saul's character, and so it follows immediately upon 1Sa_14:1-52; which was occupied with the same subject, without any note of chronology, because the historical narrative is subservient to the personal. Hence, too, Samuel's solemn address, reminding Saul that he was Jehovah's anointed one, and therefore had special duties towards him; that he had also been anointed by Samuel's instrumentality, and after earnest instruction as to his duties; and, finally, that Israel was Jehovah's people, and their king, therefore, bound to obey Jehovah's commands.
1Sa_15:2
Amalek. The Amalekites were a fierce race of nomads who inhabited the desert to the south of Judaea towards Egypt. They were, and still continue to be in their descendants, the Bedouins, an untamable race of savages, whose delight is in robbery and plunder. Between them and Israel there was bitter hostility occasioned by their having attacked the people immediately after the Exodus (Exo_17:8-16), and the command there given to exterminate them is repeated now, probably in consequence of their raids having become more numerous and sanguinary under their present king, as we gather from 1Sa_15:33. The reference to a war with the Amalektes in 1Sa_14:48 no doubt refers to this expedition, as we have there a mere summary of Saul's military enterprises. I remember. Literally, "I have visited;" but the sense of remembering seems confirmed by such passages as Gen_21:1; Gen_1:24; Isa_23:17; Isa_26:16. The Septuagint, however, and Aquila, give a very good sense: "I have considered, "thought over." How he laid wait for him in the way. There is no idea in the Hebrew of ambuscade or treachery. It is simply, "How he set himself in the way against him," i.e. opposed, withstood him, tried to bar his progress.
1Sa_15:3
Utterly destroy. Hebrew, "put under the ban." The word herem, ban, properly signifies a thing set apart, especially one devoted to God; and whatever was so devoted could not be redeemed, but must be slain. When a country was put under the ban, all living things, men and cattle, were to be killed; no spoil might be taken, but it was to be burnt, and things indestructible by fire, as silver and gold, were to be brought into the treasury. Everything, in short, belonging to such a nation was looked upon as accursed (see Num_21:2, Num_21:3).
1Sa_15:4
Telaim. Kimchi identifies this with Telem (Jos_15:24), a place on the southern border of Judah near the country of the Amalekites. But as telaim means "lambs," more probably beth, "house," is to be understood; and so it was no town, but the "place of lambs," i.e. some open spot where at the proper season the lambs were collected from the pastures in the wilderness. Ten thousand men of Judah. A very small number compared with the hosts of Israel, especially as Judah was most exposed to the Amalekite, raids
, but, for some reason or other, broke up into small tribes, some, as those here spoken of, choosing the wilderness of Judah for their home (Jdg_1:16), others living far to the north in Naphtali (Jdg_4:11, Jdg_4:17), others among the rocks of Arabia Petraea. Of these last we know but little, but the rest continued to be on friendly terms with David (1Sa_30:29).
1Sa_15:7
From Havilah until thou comest to Shur. Hebrew, "from Havilah as thou goest towards Shur." It seems impossible that this Havilah can be the northwestern portion of Yemen, called Chawlan, and identified with the Havilah of Gen_10:7, Gen_10:29, as this would make Saul smite them from southeast to northwest. Shur, which means wall, is, as Wellhausen (Text Samuel 97) observes, originally the name of the wall which ran from Pelusium past Migdol to Hero, and which gave to Egypt, as Ebers thinks, its name Mizraim, the enclosed or fortified. Shur is again mentioned in 1Sa_27:8 as indicating the direction towards Egypt of the region occupied by the Amalekites. Havilah, which means circle, must have been some spot on the route to the isthmus of Suez, lying on the edge of the wilderness to the south of Judah, where Saul commenced his foray. Beginning thus upon the borders of Judaea, Saul continued his devastations up to the limits of Egypt.
1Sa_15:8
He took Agag. This was the official name of the Amalekite kings (see Num_24:7), as Pharaoh was that of the kings of Egypt. For its meaning we must wait till we know more about the language of this race. Agag, however, from 1Sa_15:32, seems to have been able to speak Hebrew. He utterly destroyed—i.e. put under the ban—all the people. They appear, however, again in 1Sa_27:8, and with so vast a wilderness in which to take refuge, it would be impossible really to exterminate a people used to lead a wandering life. Moreover, as soon as Israel began to lay hands on the spoil the pursuit would flag, as the cattle would be killed by over driving.
1Sa_15:9
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.
REJECTION OF SAUL AND HIS DYNASTY (1Sa_15:10-23).
1Sa_15:11
It repenteth me. By the law of man's free will his concurrence is necessary in carrying out the Divine purpose, and consequently every man called to the execution of any such purpose undergoes a probation. God's purpose will be finally carried out, but each special instrument, if it prove unworthy, will be laid aside. This change of administration is always described in Scriptural language as God's repentance, possibly because the phrase contains also the idea of the Divine grief over the rebellious sinner. But though Saul and his dynasty were thus put aside, and no longer represented Jehovah, still Saul remained the actual king, because God works slowly by the natural sequence of cause and effect. Saul's ill-governed temper, and his hatred and malice towards David, were the means of bringing about his ruin. It grieved Samuel. Hebrew, "it burned to Samuel," i.e. he was angry and displeased. The same phrase occurs in Jon_4:1, where it is rendered "he was very angry." But with whom was Samuel vexed? Generally at the whole course of events, but especially with Saul. In choosing him he had hoped that, in addition to high military qualities, he would possess a religious and obedient heart. He had now obtained for him a second trial, and if, warned by his earlier failure, he had proved trustworthy all might have been well. Saul had too many noble gifts for Samuel to feel indifferent at the perversion of so great an intellect and so heroic a heart. But he was of a despotic temperament, and would bend to no will but his own; and so he had saved the best of the plunder to enrich the people, and Agag possibly as a proof of his personal triumph. And he cried unto Jehovah all night. I.e. he offered an earnest prayer for forgiveness for Saul, and for a change in his heart. As Abravanel says, Samuel no doubt loved Saul for his beauty and heroism, and therefore prayed for him; but no change came in answer to his prayer, and as forgiveness is conditional upon man's repentance, Saul was not forgiven. It is remarkable how often Samuel is represented as "crying" unto God (see 1Sa_7:8, 1Sa_7:9; 1Sa_12:18).
1Sa_15:12
Samuel rose early. If Samuel was at home at Ramah, he would have a journey of several days before reaching Carmel, the city mentioned in Jos_15:55, on the road from Arad, on the borders of the wilderness of Judah, about ten miles southeast of Hebron. The words in the morning should be joined with rose early. Before setting out, however, Samuel learned that Saul had already marched northward towards Gilgal, having first set him up a place—Hebrew, "a hand," i.e. a monument, something to call attention to his victory. In 2Sa_18:18 Absalom's pillar is styled "Absalom's hand." A Hebrew trophy in honour of a victory possibly had a hand carved upon it. Gilgal was the city in the Jordan valley near Jericho, whither Samuel now followed Saul.
1Sa_15:13
Blessed be thou of Jehovah. Saul meets Samuel with all external respect, and seems even to expect his approval, saying, I have performed the commandment of Jehovah. And so he had in the half way in which men generally keep God's commandments, doing that part which is agreeable to themselves, and leaving that part undone which gives them neither pleasure nor profit. Saul probably had thought very little about the exact terms of the command given him, and having successfully accomplished the main point of carrying out a vast foray against the Amalekites, regarded the captive king and the plundered cattle as proofs of his victory. The trophy at Carmel is a token of his own self satisfaction.
1Sa_15:14
What meaneth then this bleating? etc. Literally, "What is this voice of sheep in my ears, and the voice of oxen?" While Saul's own conscience was silent they were proclaiming his disobedience.
1Sa_15:15
They have brought them. No doubt this was verbally true, and very probably the excuse of holding a great sacrifice to Jehovah had been put prominently forward. But reasons are never wanting when men have made up their minds, and the people who so readily obeyed Saul before (1Sa_14:24, 1Sa_14:34, 1Sa_14:40) would have obeyed him now, had he really wished it. For a king so wilful and imperious as Saul thus to seek for excuses, and try to throw the blame on others, marks, as has been well observed, a thorough break down of his moral character.
1Sa_15:16
Stay. Samuel will hear no more. Long as he had striven for him in prayer (1Sa_15:11), he now feels that Saul has fallen too low for recovery to be possible. This night. It is plain from this that Samuel had not gone to meet Saul at Carmel, but on receiving information of his movements had proceeded straight to Gilgal, distant from Ramah about fifteen miles.
1Sa_15:17
When—rather, Though—thou wast little in thine own sight. Before his elevation to the royal dignity Saul had deemed himself altogether unequal to so heavy a task (1Sa_9:21); now, after great military successes, he is filled with arrogance, and will rule in open defiance of the conditions upon which Jehovah had appointed him to the office
1Sa_15:18
The sinners. The Amalekites were a race of robbers, and the command "to devote them" was the consequence of the robbery and murder practised by them on the Israelite borders.
1Sa_15:20, 1Sa_15:21
Saul's justifcation of himself is remarkable, as he seems entirely unconscious of having done anything wrong. His education had no doubt been defective (1Sa_10:12), and his knowledge of the law was probably very small; but he must have listened to Samuel's injunctions in a very off hand way, and have troubled himself about very little more than that he was to make war upon the Amalekites. There may even have been the wish in his mind to let Samuel know that he was now king, and would carry on affairs after his own fashion. The very form of his answer requires notice; for the word rendered yea is literally in that, or because, and may be paraphrased as follows: Do you reproach me thus because I have obeyed you? See, there is Agag in proof of our victory; and if the people have spared the cattle, it was with the best of intentions. The next clause, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, reads in the A.V. like an ironical parenthesis. It is not so, but an important part of Saul's defence. These sheep and oxen were "the best of the devoted things," selected as the first fruits for sacrifice. Saul may not have known that such a sacrifice was forbidden (Deu_13:15-17). The words, to sacrifice unto Jehovah thy God, imply that Samuel ought to be pleased at the victorious army doing this public homage to the Deity whose prophet he was. It was virtually a compliment to himself, and is very much in accordance with the notions of the generality of people now, who consider that attendance at a place of worship, or sending their children to school, is a favour to the clergyman.
1Sa_15:22, 1Sa_15:23
The rebuke of Samuel contains one of those pregnant sayings which mark the high moral tone of the teaching of the prophets, and soon became a fundamental principle with them. To obey is better than sacrifice is a dictum reproduced by Hosea (Hos_6:6), the most ancient of those prophets of Israel whose lessons have been preserved in writing; it is referred to in still earlier psalms (see Psa_1:1-6 :8-14; Psa_51:16, Psa_51:17); by other prophets (Isa_1:11; Jer_6:20; Mic_6:6, Mic_6:8); and finally received our Lord's special approbation (Mat_9:13; Mat_12:7). It asserts in the clearest terms the superiority of moral to ritual worship, and that God can only be really served with the heart. Witchcraft is in the Hebrew divination, a sin always strongly condemned in the Old Testament. Iniquity literally means nothingness, and so is constantly used for "an idol;" and this must be its signification here, as the word coupled with it, and rendered idolatry, is really teraphim. These were the Hebrew household gods, answering to the Roman Lares, and were supposed to bring good luck. Their worship, we see from this place, was strictly forbidden. The verse, therefore, means, "For rebellion is the sin of divination (i.e. is equal to it in wickedness), and obstinacy (i.e. intractableness) is an idol and teraphim." Samuel thus accuses Saul of resistance to Jehovah's will, and of the determination at all hazards to be his own master. With this temper of mind he could be no fit representative of Jehovah, and therefore Samuel dethrones him. Henceforward he reigns only as a temporal, and no longer as the theocratic, king.
SAUL'S PROFESSION OF REPENTANCE AND FINAL REJECTION (verses 24-35).
1Sa_15:24
The words of Samuel struck Saul with terror. The same authority which had first given him the kingdom now withdraws it from him, and pronounces his offence as equal in God's sight to crimes which Saul himself held in great abhorrence. He humbles himself, therefore, before Samuel, acknowledges his sin, and frankly confesses that the cause of it had been his unwillingness to act in a manner contrary to the wishes of the people; and we must fairly conclude that the sparing of the spoil had been the people's doing. But was it not the king's duty to make the people obedient to Jehovah's voice? As the theocratic king, he was Jehovah's minister, and in preferring popularity to duty he showed himself unworthy of his position. Nor can we suppose that his confession of sin arose from penitence. It was the result simply of vexation at having his victory crossed by reproaches and disapproval from the only power capable of holding him in check. It seems, too, as if it were Samuel whom he feared more than Jehovah; for he speaks of thy words, and asks Samuel to pardon his sin, and to grant him the favour of his public presence with him at the sacrifice which was about to be celebrated in honour of their triumph.
1Sa_15:26, 1Sa_15:27, 1Sa_15:28
At first the prophet refuses the king's request. Saul had dishonoured God, and, therefore, had no claim to public homage from God's minister. He turns, therefore, to go away, and Saul in his eagerness seizes hold of Samuel's mantle. The A.V. is very careless about the exact rendering of words of this description, and seems guided in its choice of terms simply by the ear. Now the mantle, addereth, though used of the Shinar shawl stolen by Achan (Jos_7:21, Jos_7:24), was the distinctive dress of the prophets, but naturally was never worn by Samuel himself. Special dresses come into use only gradually, and Elijah is the first person described as being thus clad. Long before his time the schools of the prophets had grown into a national institution, and a loose wrapper of coarse cloth made of camel's hair, fastened round the body at the waist by a leathern girdle, had become the usual prophetic dress, and continued so to be until the arrival of Israel's last prophet, John the Baptist (Mat_3:4). The garment here spoken of is the meil, on which see 1Sa_2:19, where it was shown to be the ordinary dress of people of various classes in easy circumstances. Now the meil was not a loosely flowing garment, but fitted rather closely to the body, and, therefore, the tearing of it implies a considerable amount of violence on Saul's part. Skirt, moreover, gives a wrong idea. What Saul took hold of was the hem, the outer border of the garment, probably at Samuel's neck or shoulder, as he turned to go away. He seized him, as we should say, by the collar, and endeavoured by main force to retain him, and in the struggle the hem rent. And Samuel, using it as an omen, said, Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou. Neighbour is used in Hebrew in a very indefinite manner, and here means generally "some one, whoever it may be," but one who will discharge the duties of thy office better than thou hast done (comp. Luk_10:36).
1Sa_15:29
The Strength—better, as in the margin, the Victory or Triumph—of Israel. He who is Israel's Victory, or He in whom Israel has victory, will not repent. In 1Sa_15:11 God was said to repent, because there was what appeared to be a change in the Divine counsels. "God gave Israel a king in his anger, and took him away in his wrath" (Hos_13:11). But such modes of speaking are in condescension to human weakness. Absolutely with God there is no change. He is the Eternal Present, with whom all things that were, and are, and shall be are one. But even looked at from below, as this finite creature man looks at his Maker's acts, there is no change in the Divine counsels, because, amidst all the vicissitudes of human events, God's will moves calmly forward without let or hindrance. No lower or secondary motives influence him, no rival power thwarts him. One instrument may be laid aside, and another chosen, because God ordains that the instruments by which he works shall be beings endowed with free will. Saul was the very counterpart of the Jewish people—highly endowed with noble qualities, but headstrong, self-willed, disobedient. Nevertheless, he laid the foundation for the throne of David, who in so many points was the ideal of the theocratic king; and Israel in like manner prepared the way for the coming of the true Messianic King, and gave mankind the one Catholic, i.e. universal, religion. "He who is Israel's Victory does not repent."
1Sa_15:30, 1Sa_15:31
Then he said, I have sinned. We have here no real confession of guilt. Even in 1Sa_15:24 the words were rather an expression of vexation at the strictness with which he was held to the letter of the command, than an acknowledgment that he really had done wrong. Here Saul's meaning seems to be, Well, granting that I have sinned, and that this sentence of exclusion kern the kingdom is passed upon me, yet at least pay me the honor due to the rank which I still continue to hold. And to this request Samuel accedes. Saul was de facto king, and would continue to be so during his lifetime. The anointing, once bestowed, was a consecration for life, and so generally it was in the days of the son that the consequences of the father's sin came fully to pass (1Ki_11:1-43 :84, 35; 1Ki_14:13, etc.). Had Samuel refused the public honour due to Saul's rank, it would have given an occasion for intrigue and resistance to all who were disaffected with Saul's government, and been a step towards bringing back the old anarchy. Jehovah thy God. See on 1Sa_15:13.
1Sa_15:32
Delicately. The Septuagint and Vulgate translate this word trembling, and the Syriac omits, probably from inability to give its meaning. Most commentators render cheerfully, joyfully, forming it from the same root as Eden, the garden of joy (comp. Psa_36:8, where Eden is translated pleasure). The very word, however, occurs in Job_38:31, where the A.V. renders it bands, and this seems the right sense: "Agag came unto him in fetters." The idea that Agag came cheerfully is contradicted by the next clause—Surely the bitterness of death is passed. Though put affirmatively, there is underlying doubt. It is no expression of heroic contempt for death, nor of real confidence that, as Saul had spared him hitherto, his life was in no danger. He had been brought to the national sanctuary, and a great festival in honour of the success of the army was to be held. It was entirely in accordance with the customs of ancient times that his execution should be the central feature of the spectacle. Agag's words show that this fear was present in his mind, though they are put in such a form as to be a protest against his life being taken after so long delay. Samuel's reply treats Agag's assertion as being thus at once a question and a protest. The bitterness of death has still to be borne, and the cruelty of Agag's past life makes the shedding of his own blood just. The Syriac translates, "Surely death is bitter;" the Septuagint, "If death be so bitter," with which the Vulgate agrees. Thus they all understood that Agag came trembling for his life.
1Sa_15:33
As thy sword hath made women childless. Agag's life had been spent in freebooting expeditions, in which he had shed blood ruthlessly, and so justice required his execution in requital of his deeds to others. Samuel hewed Agag in pieces. The verb occurs only here, and probably refers to some particular method of execution, like the quartering of the middle ages. Being in the Piel conjugation, it would mean not so much that Samuel put Agag to death himself as that he commanded it to be done.
1Sa_15:35
Samuel came no more to see Saul. The friendly intercourse which had previously existed was now broken off, and though they met again (1Sa_19:24), it was neither in an amicable manner, nor was their interview of Samuel's seeking. But the words have a higher meaning than the mere seeing or meeting one with the other. They involve the cessation of that relation in which Samuel and Saul had previously stood to one another as respectively the prophet and king of the same Jehovah Saul was no longer the representative of Jehovah, and consequently Samuel no more came to him, bearing messages and commands, and giving him counsel and guidance from God. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul. There was so much in him that was good and admirable, and he had wrought such brave services in delivering Israel from its many enemies, that Samuel loved him. Now he saw all his high qualities perverted, the man fallen, his powers of usefulness destroyed. Already, too, there was probably the beginning of that darkening of Saul's intellect which filled so many of his future years with melancholy, bursting out from time to time into fits of madness. All this would end in the expulsion of himself and his dynasty from the throne, for Jehovah repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. See on 1Sa_15:11
1. Saul is reminded that though a king he is but the servant of God, and bound to carry out his declared will.
2. Saul is commanded to utterly destroy Amalek in retribution for former sins.
3. In prosecuting his duty Saul discriminates in favour of the Kenites, then resident among the Amalekites, in consequence of their former kindness to Israel. It appears from 1Sa_14:48 that, although the sin of Amalek in bygone times (Exo_17:8-16) was the primary ground of the judgment about to be inflicted, the recent annoyance and injury caused to Saul's subjects was the occasion for the execution of the ancient sentence at this juncture. Those living under the mild and beneficent influences of the Christian dispensation are conscious of a shock to their sensibilities in reading the account of wholesale destruction brought by human instrumentality on an entire people; and the emotional disturbance is supplemented by intellectual perplexity on observing that the transaction was in obedience to a most explicit command of God. It is sometimes the practice, very easy for all who will not take pains to enter carefully into the subject, to get rid of the emotion and the perplexity by rejecting the inspiration of the entire record, or else by saying that Samuel and Saul sincerely but ignorantly mistook their own views of policy and dispositions of heart for the voice of God. The question at issue is a large one, but as it embraces in principle the whole of what in the Psalms are called his "terrible acts," which, whenever occurring or read, tax our feelings and perplex our intellects, we may notice a few points applicable more or less to all God's righteous judgments.
I. THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH WE SHOULD APPROACH THE CONSIDERATION OF GOD'S "TERRIBLE ACTS." It is not improbable that an unteachable, self-assertive spirit—a spirit that will not repose in a higher wisdom and goodness than its own, or that chafes under its inability to square human views of sin and its relations with God's—is the moral cause of man's quarrel with some of the records of Old Testament history. Our present contention is not with atheists, who to get rid of one difficulty create many others, but with those who believe in an almighty, all-wise, and merciful God, who is the Author of the moral and physical laws, by the action of which the world finds bliss or woe. We cannot help finding ourselves face to face with events bringing sorrow add shame, material and moral desolation to multitudes, because God so willed one creature's condition to be affected by the conduct of another. Apart from all human conduct, there are awful events in which, so to speak, the reputation of God for goodness and tenderness seems to be at stake. This circumstance should make the rejecter of Old Testament records pause ere he yields to the spirit of unbelief. There are "clouds and darkness" round about the throne; and he who would flee from mystery may well seek to flee from the universe. The judgment that condemns everything of which it does not see the reason is not qualified to exercise itself on the acts of an infinite Being. The cherubim and seraphim cover their faces, not presuming to attempt to pierce even with their clear and strong vision the ineffable glory; and so when a great burden of fear rests on our heart because of the terrible things of God, it is for us to bow in lowliness and trustfulness, saying for our comfort, because of what we know him to be, and not because we can solve the awful problems of existence, "Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?" (Rev_15:3, Rev_15:4; cf. Psa_36:6).
II. FACTS AND PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD WEIGH WITH US IN OUR THOUGHTS UPON GOD'S "TERRIBLE ACTS." It is not possible to find a perfect solution of all the acts ascribed to God, or even those known, without question, to result from his appointments. But some light shines around the "clouds and darkness," and here and there a rift in the awful covering appears.
1. There is an awful as well as a mild aspect of the Divine nature. Christianity is no doubt mildness, tenderness, peace, love—all that is precious to the sorrowing, perplexed spirit. The tendency of some, however, is to overlook the significant fact that all this becomes real to us in virtue of the awful sufferings and death of the Son of God. The fact, and the evident necessity of the fact, for otherwise it would not occur, of his unutterable woes is perhaps the most stupendous of all terrible acts known by man. There was the love that gave him for man; yes, and the awful righteousness which had so originally constituted the moral relations of men to a holy God that love could only effect its work through a catastrophe, on which angels must have gazed with perplexity, and possibly pain, greater than any we know when contemplating a ruined Amalek or a world swept by deluge. It is an imperfect Christianity which eliminates the majesty of righteousness in Law. He who said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," is the same who one day will say, "Depart." "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." The "wrath of the Lamb" is as real as his love.
2. The events which confound our thought are not confined to the Scripture record. Who shall estimate the pains of death experienced during the succession of catastrophes incident to the history of our globe? It is probable that the number of Amalekites who fell under the judgment of God was less than the sum of young and old who in one day experience the "pains of death" by the ordination of God. The destruction caused by the deluge, the fire on Sodom, the waters on the Egyptians, is not greater in the number of lives cut off than what befell the thousands cut off by events not mentioned in the Bible. What though the events—the sweeping calamities of famine, plague, earthquake, and flood, and the daily sufferings and death of thousands of young and old—be the outcome of law! God is the Author of that law, and, therefore, the events are in a significant sense his, as truly as were the ruin of Sodom and the doom of the Amalekites. No doubt the sum of enjoyment in the lives of creatures cut off by catastrophes was far in excess of the sum of misery experienced in the cutting of them off, and so a philosopher can still rest in the benevolence of God. Sudden destruction is not identical with a whole existence given up only to anguish.
3. So far as we can see, the great woes that come by ordinary law and by special command are alike subordinate to an ulterior issue. Although we speak of some events occurring by the action of natural law,—e.g. earthquakes, floods, famines, and plagues,—yet those in which the specific command appears are also according to law. The difference lies in the fact of the Divine origin of the arrangement which issues in destruction being brought out and emphasised. The laws that work ruin in fire and tempest and flood are subordinate to the higher laws involved in the perfect economy of the world. Laws involving incidental disasters subserve the conservation of the whole system of which they are a part. The laws which bring destruction to men who have sinned, and because they have sinned, are subordinate to the moral laws that govern man's relation to God. They are so interrelated, in these instances, as to be parts of one great system, and to subserve the final supremacy of the law of righteousness on which the health and well being of the world depend. It is a Divine ordination, and is incorporated with the physical and mental constitution of man, that the sin of the fathers shall be visited, not to the exclusion from woe of the parent, but intensifying it, on the third and fourth generation. We see this law at work every day. Awful as it is, we can even now see its value as subservient to the righteousness which alone makes men blessed; for it is a most potent check to vice. Irrespective of their own immoral condition, the cutting off of the Amalekites for the sin of their ancestors is analogous to the shortened lives, the wretched health, the filthy poverty, and other miseries which are the inevitable lot of the offspring of the desperately vicious; and this for ulterior issues.
4. Nations have no posthumous existence. For individuals judgment is often reserved till another life. Nations, if visited with judgment at all, must suffer here. In the instruction of the individual, the fact of the coming punishment of the individual sinner bears an important part as a deterrent. In the instruction of nations as such, the signal and conspicuous punishment of a people also plays an important part. This use of national judgments is constantly recognised in the language of Scripture. "The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations" (Isa_52:10): "Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men" (Psa_9:20). At the same time the judgments which on earth come on nations as such do not necessarily foreclose hope to the young and innocent among them of a personal salvation from the woe due to the personally guilty in another life.
5. God is the only true Judge of the actual demerits of a guilty nation. We cannot rightly estimate the intrinsic evil even of our own personal sins. "The Judge of all the earth" must decide what is appropriate punishment for national crime; for he only knows the degree of enmity in the minds of Sodomites and Amalekites. None but he can see the intricate bearings of their sin and of their continued existence as a people. He also knows best what blessed deterrent influence will arise to mankind from the conspicuous character of the judgment executed.
6. The means by which judgment is executed appear to be determined by conditions known to God. Judgment works inwardly through the conscience and the mental faculties in general. They bear the curse of the sin committed. It also works externally by the pressure against the sinner of the order of nature, which is in league with righteousness, and ultimately makes "the way of transgressors hard." Nations have not a very lively conscience. The force of Divine judgments usually comes from without. The instrumentality used is evidently connected with the actual presence of forces which, acting in a natural way under the preordained direction of the Omniscient, become "his arm." Doubtless there were physical conditions of earth and atmosphere which rendered destruction by a deluge both natural and yet conspicuously of God. The Sodomites were destroyed not by water, nor slow plague, nor famine, but by the natural combustible materials close at hand. The Amalekites were not left to die out by internal anarchy, or famine, or pestilence, but were given up to the action of that international hostility which was as real an element of destruction close at hand as was the volcanic force at Sodom. He who in his vast prevision, seeing the coexistence of the vices of antediluvians with certain fluvial conditions of a portion of the earth, and the coexistence of the sin of Sodom with certain volcanic conditions, used them for this purpose, may have also given full freedom to the play of national sentiment in the minds of Israel coexisting at that juncture with the fit time for the execution of a purpose to obliterate a guilty nation. Had pestilence or earthquake carried them off, it would have been God's act as truly as when the soldiers of Saul were the executioners of a decree. The employment of an executioner gives no right, but the reverse, to others to go and do the same.
7. The form of punishment on communities under the Old Testament dispensation is evidently suggestive of the danger of antagonism to Christ. The sin of Amalek was that of deliberate attempt to destroy the people of God (Exo_17:8-16; Deu_25:17-19). That means to prevent the realisation of salvation in the "seed of Abraham." If Amalek knew, as is certainly possible, the lofty claims of Israel, the crime was most fearful. That in the mind of God and of Israel such was the nature of the sin is seen in the discrimination made in favour of the Kenites because they showed kindness to Israel (verse 6). It is at all events clear that God would have men learn that it was the sin of obstructing his purposes of mercy for mankind that was so obnoxious in his sight. The terrible national destruction which this sin brought on is a clear intimation of the "destruction from the presence of the Lord" which must come on the individuals who set themselves in antagonism to Christ and his purposes of mercy to the world. A more terrible sin than that cannot be conceived; a more terrible act of judgment cannot be imagined than that which will come when Christ shall say, "Depart from me, ye cursed" (Mat_25:41). "It is a fearful thing," even under the gospel dispensation, "to fall into the hands of the living God" after a life of deliberate antagonism to the very Saviour he has sent to redeem us. Although, therefore, there may be much in the recorded "terrible acts" of God which weighs on our spirit and demands of us reverence and humility, still we are not without some gleams of light to sustain our faith both in the sacred records and the righteousness which never fails.
General lessons:—
1. We see how judgment does surely come, though for generations it seems to linger.
2. It becomes us to inquire whether we by any conduct of ours are impeding the march of God's people.
3. We see how God remembers, and causes his servants to remember, acts of kindness rendered to the weary on their way to the promised rest.
4. It is a painful duty to have to be executors of God's judgments; yet when men in national and domestic affairs are really called to it, let them subordinate personal sentiment to solemn duty.
5. In all our painful thoughts over the woes that come on the universe, involving the young and old, let us seek grace to "be still," and to wait for the passing away of the night and the coming of the light that shall turn weeping into joy; for it will come.
1Sa_15:8-11
1. Saul, in disobedience to the command of God, spares Agag and the best of the spoil.
2. God declares to Samuel that he can endure with Saul as king no longer.
3. Samuel, in his grief, cries unto God all night. It is never said that God changes his purpose absolutely. Where promises are given conditional on conduct they are revoked when conduct fails. We cannot ascribe human feelings to God; yet it is only by the analogy of human feelings that we can know anything of the mind of God. The setting aside from kingly office of Saul was an act of the Divine mind conformable with the original purpose of making him king, since the condition of permanence had not been fulfilled. Saul had been borne with so long; now he is to be borne with no longer. Patience yields to judgment.
I. THERE IS A LIMIT TO DIVINE PATIENCE. Patience bears relation to wrongdoing, or the sufferance of ill. In God it relates to the restraint he puts on himself in the presence of that which merits his displeasure. That there is such a limit to Divine patience is clear.
1. The language of Scripture indicates it. The heart of God is represented as being under pressure of a moral force which can scarcely be resisted. "How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?" (Hos_11:8). The retrospect of the past brings into view the overpowering considerations which withheld good and allowed calamity to come. "He should have fed them with the finest of the wheat" (Psa_81:16). "O that my people had hearkened unto me!" (ibid. 1Sa_15:13). The persistence of men in sin, despite all counsel and mercy, raises the question of the length of time during which the hand of justice can be stayed. "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?" (Num_14:27). A reference to love, tenderness, and care is set in sad contrast with the doom which the ingratitude so long endured is about to bring (Mat_23:37, Mat_23:38).
2. Recorded facts illustrate it. The vices of the antediluvians were long endured, and it was after the Spirit had striven long with men, and they had refused the warnings of Noah, that patience yielded to the execution of judgment (1Pe_3:20). The repeated warnings given to Pharaoh reveal a patience which terminated in the overthrow in the Red Sea. Patience was "grieved" with the perverse generation in the wilderness, but grief gave place to a "wrath" which barred their entrance into rest (Heb_3:9-12). God endured long with some of the seven Churches in Asia, but at last judgment came, and the candlesticks were removed from their place.
3. The close of the Christian dispensation in a day of judgment is the most awful illustration of the limit to God's patience. The plain teaching of that great event is that here men have time to repent and obtain through Christ all that will qualify for a perfect life—that for the term of our earthly life God bears with our sins and provocations, and proves by thousands of favours that he "is slow to anger;" but that the end of all this must come, and judgment on the whole life ensue. His long suffering is great. But "it is appointed to men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Heb_9:27).
II. THE GROUND OF THE LIMIT OF GOD'S PATIENCE. The yielding of patience to judgment in the case of Saul was on the occasion of his clear and deliberate breach of the command (1Sa_15:1-3, 1Sa_15:8, 1Sa_15:9), and this too after other opportunities of obedience had been abused. But the question arises how it is that a certain degree or persistence in wrong is the occasion of the cessation of patience. There is a vague impression in some minds that because God is perfectly tender and loving his patience need and ought never to fail. This kind of thinking springs from very defective views of the character of God and of his relation to a moral order. It may not be possible for us to give a perfect rationale of Divine procedure; but there is perhaps light enough to indicate the wisdom and goodness of even a limit to God's patience.
1. The privileges of responsible beings imply a probation for their use. The primary notion of a responsible being is one blessed with privilege, and able to use or abuse it at will But men are constituted so as to derive much wisdom from experience, and hence failure in the use of privilege, in a few instances, may possibly create an experience that will constrain to a more careful observance of duty when newly imposed. Life is full of helps to obedience as well as of hindrances. But as time is required for the development of responsibility, so it is obvious that the possession of privilege involves a limit to the period for use or abuse. Government without a reckoning would be no government. Everlasting patience is inconsistent with responsibility attendant on privilege.
2. In a moral order, where beings are closely interrelated, breach of duty affects others. Saul's conduct could not end in himself. He, as fount of authority and influence, would damage his people by every act of disobedience to the Divine command. The repeated sins of men are so many attacks on the common welfare of the universe. God "desireth not the death of a sinner," but that he should "turn and live;" but he is the Guardian of right, of good, of peace, and of all that enters into the true welfare of the entire universe, and hence there is a love most deep and a wisdom unsearchable in not allowing the wilful sinner any longer to be exempt from the restraints which judgment imposes.
3. Repeated acts of disobedience reveal to God a state of mind which will not benefit by further favours. Every act of sin brings man lower in the moral scale. But while mercy and gentleness afford the sinner every possible chance to recover what is lost, it is possible for the habit of sin to gain such power over the entire man that to the eye of the Eternal his last chance of improving additional opportunities is clean gone. Samuel's distress at the abandonment of Saul (1Sa_15:11) was natural, and if his cry all night Was intercession, it was only what might be expected of a good man who knows only in part. The intercession of Moses (Num_14:15-23) was for pardon, and was partially successful. Samuel's would appear to have been for pardon in the form of Saul's continuance in the kingly office with the usual Divine sanctions. It is, however, obvious that the judgment of God was based on his perfect knowledge that the heart of Saul was too far gone to be trusted any further. It is an awful fact that a man may, by transgression, work himself into such a condition that all is lost on him, and will be lost. God, knowing this, may cease to be long suffering, and reject him as "nigh unto cursing" (Heb_6:6-8).
4. The holiness of God requires vindication. Every pang which followed Saul s earlier sins and every rebuke from Samuel was some vindication of the holiness of God. The private and subjective recognition by the sinner of an insulted holiness is not all that the government of God requires. He is a jealous God; he will be honoured in the eyes of all people. Continued long suffering followed by judgment renders holiness more conspicuous than when judgment forestalls long suffering.
General lessons:—
1. We should never forget that every day affords us new opportunities of keeping God's commands.
2. It will repay the effort if we endeavour to form an estimate of the privileges conferred on us in the past, and the extent to which we have drawn on the patience of God.
3. If we are deliberately disobedient in any office of trust, we may some day look for a grave judgment.
4. We are not always competent to see the wisdom of God's severity, and may possibly pray for what is not to be granted.
1Sa_15:12-23
1. Saul, having raised a monument in honour of his victory, meets Samuel with a pious salutation, as though all were well.
2. On being reminded of the presence of spoil, Saul explains by saying that it was spared for the worship of God in sacrifice.
3. Samuel, referring to the instructions received from God, presses home upon him the fact of his guilt in disobeying the Lord.
4. Saul, in response, maintains that substantially he has obeyed the voice of the Lord, but that the people spared the spoil for a religious purpose.
5. Samuel, therefore, urges the great truth that rigid obedience to God is the primary and essential duty, without which all else is sinful, and that rebellion is a sin as heinous as those which men admit to be most vile.
6. Samuel declares to Saul his rejection of God. The important interview between the disobedient king and the prophet of God brings out several great truths.
I. MAN'S PREFERENCE OF HIS OWN WILL TO THE CLEARLY DECLARED WILL OF GOD IS POSITIVE REBELLION AGAINST THE SUPREME AUTHORITY. Saul's sin was known to himself as a preference of his own course in dealing with the Amalekites. He thought it best to modify the command in its detailed execution. No doubt there were reasons which seemed to render such a course useful. It is clear that he did not realise all that it involved, though that was his own fault. To him as a king, whose word was supposed to be law to his subjects, there is something very appropriate in the prophet assuring him that this preference of his own will, however plausible the reasons for it, was not a simple weakness or fault, but nothing less than rebellion—a term of fearful significance under a properly constituted government. The preference was virtually a setting up a counter authority, impeaching the wisdom of God. Saul is not the only one to whom God has plainly declared his will. More or less he has spoken to all men (Rom_1:20). To those blessed with the revealed will as contained in the Scriptures he has given commandments as precise and emphatic as that to Saul to destroy the Amalekites. Every believer in Christianity knows as well as he knows anything that God commands him to repent of sin (Act_17:30); to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation from the curse of sin (Joh_20:31; Act_16:30, Act_16:31; 1Jn_5:10-13); to exterminate all evil—all Amalekites—from the soul (Rom_8:13; 1Th_4:3; 1Pe_1:16); and to submit heart, will, and intellect to the authority of Christ (Mat_11:29; Joh_5:23; Act_10:36; Php_2:10, Php_2:11). Now is it not a fact that men often prefer not to do this? They do not dispute in formal terms the authority of God, any more than did Saul; yet for reasons known to themselves they prefer not to repent of sin, not to commit themselves to Christ, not to cast out sinful desires, not to bow in all things to the yoke of the Saviour. It is possible that reasons may be forthcoming to, at least, show that there is no violent antagonism. But when carefully looked at it is nothing but the positive setting up of man's will as a better, more to be desired will than God's; it is positive rebellion of a subject against a king—a setting at nought of the supreme authority of the universe.
II. MAN'S ESTIMATE OF THE SIN OF REBELLION IS IN STRIKING CONTRAST WITH GOD'S. Whether Saul was self-persuaded that he had not committed any sin (1Sa_15:13) is, as we shall yet see, doubtful. The probability is that he was conscious of uneasiness, but had no true conception of the enormity of his sin. His feeling was that he had no wish to disown the authority of God, that it was a mere matter of detail, that his general conduct was exemplary, and that he followed the inner light which seemed just then to indicate another way of ultimately and substantially carrying out the command. So do men tone down their sins and regard them as venial. The prophet's words reveal God's estimate of the sin of disobedience. It is the cardinal sin (1Sa_15:22, 1Sa_15:23). It cuts at the root of all authority. It is the assertion of a power and a wisdom over against the power and wisdom of the Eternal. It makes man a worshipper of himself rather than of God. It ignores the solemn truth that we "cannot serve two masters." It does dishonour to him whose commandments are holy, just, and good. It sows in the moral sphere seeds of evil, which, taking root, must widen the aberration of man from God. It claims for the desires and dim light of a sinful creature a higher value in the determination of actions than is to be attached to the purposes of the All-Perfect. To render its heinous character more clear, the prophet asserts that it renders useless and even wicked the most solemn acts of worship (1Sa_15:22; cf. Isa_1:11-15). No profession of religion; no self-denial in surrender of choice property; no conformity with venerable customs, or obedience in other particulars, will for a moment be accepted in lieu of full and implicit obedience to the clear commands which God lays on man both in relation to himself and mankind. God will have no reserve of our will. Again, to make it more impressive, the prophet assures Saul that this rebellion is in its evil nature equal to the sins which men are led by education and custom to regard as the most abominable and indefensible. "As the sin of witchcraft, as iniquity and idolatry." There are men still who shrink in horror at heathenism and vile arts. Are they prepared to believe that not to obey the clear command to repent, to believe on Christ, to become pure, and to submit in all things to the yoke of Christ, is as dreadful in the sight of God as being an idolater or a vile deceiver? It is this Divine estimate of sin which alone explains the." many stripes" with which they will be punished who, knowing the Lord's will with respect to these matters, nevertheless prefer their own. It will be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom than for some of our day (Mat_11:20-24).
III. MAN'S CONDITION AND CONDUCT AFTER DELIBERATE REBELLION IS A REVELATION OF ITS EVIL NATURE. All sin degrades and debases; it prevents clear vision of one's own condition and a true estimate of conduct. Sin is always self-apologetic. It enslaves its victims. The opinion of a morally fallen being on matters of high spiritual import must always be discounted. Men in internal opposition to God are not safe guides in dealing with the loftiest problems of human existence. This general effect of sin is more manifest when a man has, after enjoying great advantages, deliberately preferred his own will to the clear will of God. He then enters into darkness most dense, and the fountain of moral thought and feeling becomes more corrupt. We see this in Saul's subsequent conduct and perverse reasoning with Samuel (1Sa_15:20, 1Sa_15:21). Even when conscience began to he aroused by the impressive language of the prophet, he found a subtle evasion in that, as a king, he had done his part in placing Agag at the disposal of Samuel, but that the people were to blame in the matter of the spoil. Thus it is ever. Sin does not end in itself. It by its evil power induces self-complacency, creates ingenious excuses, prompts to observance of outward religious acts, throws blame on circumstances over which there is no control, and even emboldens the soul to argue with the messengers of God.
IV. ONE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE OF REBELLION IS TO DISQUALIFY FOR SERVICE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Apart from the personal effects of Saul's sin, the relative effect was to unfit him for performing the part to which he had been called in the service of God. He was rejected from being king (1Sa_15:23). God's sanction and blessing were henceforth to be withheld. He was to be king in name only. The life once promising good to Israel was to be unblest and fruitful in sorrows. This result follows from every preference of our own will. We cease to hold the position and exercise the influence of God-made kings (Rev_1:4, Rev_1:5) in so far as we fail in perfect execution of the will of the King of kings. It is possible for a man to proceed from step to step in deliberate rebellion till, both on account of his inward moral decay and his pernicious influence, God'sets him aside altogether. A pastor, a parent, a professed Christian may thus be practically disowned by Providence. However he may continue to labour in some lower departments, the higher spiritual service of God will cease to be his.
General lessons.—
1. It is very dangerous to begin to compare our wishes and plans, with. the clear will of God; every thought should at once be brought into subjection.
2. Sudden and unusual outbursts of pious zeal may be a sign of an uneasy conscience; steady growth is the proof of reality.
3. The folly of excuses for sin is seen by all except the sinner himself.
4. Sin, when we are exalted to privileges, is doubly base (1Sa_15:17).
5. We must never subordinate what we may call genera/ obedience for actual literal obedience to God's will (1Sa_15:20).
6. Participation of others in our sin is no palliation of ours (1Sa_15:21).
7. Property obtained by unholy means is not acceptable to God when laid on his altar for professedly religious purposes (1Sa_15:22).
8. Obedience in matters outside acts of worship is a condition of acceptable worship, but not the ground of our salvation.
9. Deceitfulness, depravity, and idolatry are the true and ruinous characteristics of every act of doing our own pleasure when professedly engaged in doing only the will of God (1Sa_15:23).
1Sa_15:24-31
1. Saul, alleging fear of the people, admits his sin, and seeks Samuel's presence while he worships the Lord.
2. On Samuel refusing and turning away, Saul seizes and rends his garment, which circumstance is used as a sign that so the Lord had rent the kingdom from Saul and given it to another.
3. On being assured that God's purpose was irrevocable. Saul entreats, for the sake of his credit among the people that Samuel would join him in an act of worship, to which Samuel complies. The decisive language of the prophet, given in a tone which admitted of no mistake, aroused the slumbering conscience of Saul, and brought about his remarkable pleading for pity and help. We have here the case of a man guilty of a great sin, concerned for its forgiveness, but sternly assured that he shall not have it. The apparent severity of the prophet is not based on any arbitrary decree of God, nor on an unchangeableness in the "Strength of Israel" irrespective of human character and conduct, but upon God's knowledge of Saul's actual condition. The repentance which Saul thinks to be adequate, and which many men would recognise, is known by the Searcher of hearts not to be true repentance, but only a bare conviction of sin, attended with a consequent dread of the outward temporal consequences attached to it, as just indicated by Samuel. Bare conviction of sin is not true repentance. Consider -
I. ITS REAL NATURE. Conviction of sin is a matter only of an aroused conscience, brought about by the evidence of facts being set before the understanding and the presence of penalties consequent on the evidence. There was no resisting Samuel's argument. The common understanding saw that a human will in opposition to a Divine was necessarily sin, and the uneasiness of conscience thus naturally aroused was aggravated by the emphatic announcement of a great penalty—loss of the kingdom. The mental operation was that of a pure logical progression from admitted premises to an irresistible conclusion. Conscience does not disturb a man in working out a syllogism in formal logic or a demonstration in mathematics; but it does when the question reasoned on is the man's own conduct. This is the general nature of the conviction of sin which many experience. Here, observe, is an absence of all that fine spiritual discernment which sees in sin essential unholiness, and that corresponding feeling which loathes it because of what it is in the sight of God. There is no change in the spirit towards sin itself, no detestation of the self-preference which rose against the supreme will.
II. ITS MANIFESTATIONS. The manifestation of Saul's conviction of sin is a remarkable illustration of the enormous difference between bare conviction and true repentance. The force of evidence and pressure of penalty extorted the admission, "I have sinned:" yet, owing to the lack of the spirit of repentance, the mere generality of that admission was revealed by the immediate palliation, "I feared the people." Pardon, consisting in the removal of penalty, was the only pardon cared for, and even this was sought by a superstitious trust in the prayers of another. A zealous and prompt observance of some outward act of worship was thought to be a sure means of recovering lost favour. The slightest movement of Samuel indicative of the non-reversal of the penalty only excited a spasmodic dread, without the slightest trace of any changed sentiment towards sin itself. And when no hope of avoiding the penalty remains, the only thought is to break his fall before his elders, and so save some civil advantage. This analysis, expressed in terms suitable to our times, will be found to hold good of multitudes whose convic