1 Samuel 14:1-14 – Jonathan’s Audacious Plan
As chapter 14 begins, the Philistines reoccupy their outpost (Geba) at near the pass at Mikmash. Earlier Jonathan had driven them from it (13:3). The Mikmash pass was the opening to a strategic route into the Jordan River Valley. Both the towns of Michmash and Geba overlooked it (13:16; 14:5). It was a move to which Saul chose not to respond for reasons unknown to us. Instead he was sitting under a pomegranate tree, approximately four miles away in his hometown of Gibeah. He was staying there with 600 soldiers, including his son Jonathan and Ahijah, the great grandson of Eli the priest. The latter was wearing a special vest, to be worn exclusively by the high priest. It was known as the Ephod, and it had two unique stones set into it called the Urim and the Thummin. These stones would glow in some special way providing Israel with answers from God to particular questions they would ask of Him.
What Saul didn’t realize was that Jonathan was not at Gibeah. He and his armor-bearer all on their own were heading toward the Philistine encampment. Jonathan had devised a bold plan to attack his enemies. When they reached the pass at Mikmash, Jonathan and his companion stealthily moved down the steep rocky face, using the terrain to shield them until they reached the floor of the ravine (or waddi….a dry stream).
Neither Jonathan nor his armor bearer are afraid. (And aren’t you inspired by the young man’s loyalty to Jonathan….”Do everything that is in your heart. Give it all you’ve got. I am with you heart and soul!” ?) I believe the inspired writer here is also reaffirming Samuel’s earlier points (12:20, 24; 13:14) that God is pleased with and blesses those people whose hearts are committed to Him.
Perhaps these two were inspired by the victory that God gave Gideon against the Midianites (300 Israelites vs 100,000 Midianties). Jonathan knew they didn’t need overwhelming or even equivalent numbers to fight and win, for “the LORD is not limited. He can save by many or by few.”
What a wonderful reminder for us today! God’s awesome power would work for Jonathan that day, granting him victory over his enemies. It’s displayed on many other occasions in Scripture. (Can you think of a few instances?)
That same power is available to us as individuals, and as a congregation, in the face of all our challenges in life. Do we believe that God can achieve great things through the few people and the weak individuals that we are? We should. And if we don’t, perhaps it explains why at least some of our problems and difficulties continue to confront us…..
Notice also the contrast in this bold confession between the faith of Jonathan and that of his father, Saul. Saul isn’t ready to challenge the Philistines, even with 600 men at his disposal. But with only one companion Jonathan trusts in his God to give him victory. Had Jonathan asked you to accompany him, would you have gone with him? It’s worth asking yourself, how boldly do I trust in my LORD?
Jonathan’s plan depends on God giving them a sign that He will bless their efforts. If the Philistine guards invite them to come up to the outpost, instead of coming down to fight against them, Jonathan and his compatriot will know that God approves of their mission and will give them victory.
Once down the first rocky slope, the two Hebrews come out into the open, where they are seen by the Philistine guards high on the other side. God moves the Philistines to invite them up to their encampment….whatever the Philistine’s reasoning, whether to receive them as deserters with information to share, for them to merely surrender, or to see the Hebrews expend their energy before arriving to fight – Jonathan seizes the opportunity, confident that God will grant them success.
As Jonathan and his weapons bearer climb up the other side of what was a formidable, rocky slope, the overconfident Philistine guards wait for them. Inside half an acre (a large subdivision lot for a home), the two Israelites kill about twenty of their enemies and rout the remainder, who flee in terror.
1 Samuel 14:15-23 – God Gives Israel Victory over the Philistines
Jonathan had asked for one sign from the LORD, which he received. Now God sends another message – this time to Saul – through an earthquake. The Philistines panic even more, and Saul’s sentries see both the Geba garrison and Philistines that had gone out in raiding parties all fleeing for their lives.
Can you think of any other natural disasters that God used in the Bible to make a particular statement to His people, to benefit them, or to punish wickedness?
Aware of the sounds of battle in the Philistine camp, Saul realizes that some of his Israelite soldiers must have managed to launch a surprise attack against their enemies. He orders a roll call of his troops to see who is missing, only to discover that his son and his son’s weapons are absent.
Saul then orders Ahijah to put on the Ephod – apparently so that the LORD can be consulted about what He wants Saul and his men to do…..engage in battle, or do nothing. Before God replies through the Urim and Thummin, Saul halts the process as the sounds of battle get louder, and as the Philistines actually begin killing each other!
These two stones would have either given a “yes, go” or “no, don’t go” answer. Why Saul stops Ahijah, we don’t know. We can only speculate, but it appears Saul did not want to be told to stay out of the battle.
Saul’s men join Jonathan and pursue the Philistines, driving them out of the hill country (14:31). Thus, Philistine power in the eastern hill country was broken when the Israelite army, with God’s fightnig for them, re-captured the Mikmash pass.
Some Israelites who apparently had joined the Philistines (perhaps they were conscripted as soldiers or as laborers), now turn against the Philistines and join the Israelite soldeers. Even some Israelite locals who, in fear, earlier had hidden themselves from the Philistines also joined in the pursuit of the Philistines.
1 Samuel 14:24-30 ~ Saul Makes a Foolish Vow
Fasting is sometimes undertaken by believers to enhance their Spiritual focus, or as an act of self-denial (or “mortification of the flesh”), or as a sign of repentance. On other occasions, it served as something of a sacrifice to God….the sacrifice of ones food for the body.
In the midst of battle Saul rather rashly ordered his forces to fast until evening brought the end of the battle. Apparently his intent was to cultivate (manipulate ?) God’s favor to guarantee an Israelite victory. He could have been thinking about the vow that the judge Jephthah made to the LORD seeking victory against his enemies (Judges 11:30-31). We’re told that the Israelite troops were “pushed to their limit” because of Saul’s depriving them of the food needed to fuel their bodies to fight the Philistines.
Not knowing about the fasting vow that his father had made for the entire army, Jonathan ate some honey he had found in a honeycomb. Jonathan was “revived” because of the energizing effect of the honey.
When he was told about his father’s vow/curse, Jonathan properly criticized his father’s action, pointing out that is was foolish to deprive warriors of the energy they needed for the battle. They could have enjoyed far more strength to pursue the enemy. And Israel’s victory would have been greater against their Philistine adversaries.
1 Samuel 14:31-35 ~ The Hungry Warriors Commit a Ritual Violation
Jonathan’s assessment was correct. Instead of pursuing the enemy, Saul’s soldiers were so exhausted and hungry that they began slaughtering and eating animals they seized from the enemy camp. What they were doing, however, was sinful because they didn’t drain the blood from those animals first.
You see, God had established a prohibition against eating raw flesh with the blood still in it. (Genesis 9:3-4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-12, 14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23-28). The penalty for such a violation was our equivalent of excommunication.
To stop their violating God’s Law, Saul told his starving soldiers to bring all the animals to him, and that he would slaughter them on a large rock. (By slaughtering it on the ground the animal’s blood will not drain out properly, but by slaughtering on a rock, the blood could drain out better, allowing the meat to be fit for eating according to the Law.)
Afterward, Saul built an altar to the LORD. Was it appropriate, or was Saul assuming a prerogative (offering sacrifices) that belonged to the priests? The text doesn’t give us a clear answer.
1 Samuel 14:36-46 – The Urim Points to Jonathan
At the suggestion of the high priest, Saul inquires of God about the prospects for pursuing the enemy the next day. But God does not provide an answer. Immediately Saul assumes that some hidden sin among his people has offended the LORD, and he demands that the guilty party be exposed.
It’s interesting that Saul immediately assume it could be Jonathan who is at fault. Perhaps he knew that Jonathan had not been in the camp when he made his rash vow. But there is more involved here than a broken vow; here we have another test of faith for Saul. Earlier (chapter 13) Saul had failed a test of obedience to the LORD’s command, spoken through His prophet Samuel. This test would show whether or not Saul would use and abuse God’s Law.
The Urim accused and condemned, while the Thummim pronounced acquittals. These stones were held in the “breastplate of judgment” on the high priest’s ephod (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8).
Now Saul sets himself and his son off over against his soldiers. The Urim and Thummin will be used to determine if Israel’s sin lay with Saul’s or his son, or with his troops. When the lots were cast, Jonathan was identified.
Saul’s solution to the problem was that Jonathan should die.
Some of the soldiers knew that Jonathan had unknowingly eaten honey in violation of this father’s vow. No one had been willing to condemn him before Saul. Now, having been identified by the Urim, his fellow soldiers rise to Jonathan’s defense. The crime didn’t fit the punishment. Jonathan had eaten a little honey, but had won a great victory! Had those soldiers not spoken up for him, Saul probably would have executed Jonathan.
It cannot be ignored that Saul knew Jonathan was not in the camp when he made the vow because Jonathan’s absence had been revealed in the roll call (1 Samuel 14:17). In making his vow, Saul could have exempted any warrior who was not present to hear his pronouncement. He also could have given a pardon to Jonathan and his armor bearer since they had not heard of his vow.
According to God’s Law, a vow was binding if it was made in the name of the LORD: “When you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not delay fulfilling it, because the LORD our God will require it of you and you will be guilty. But of you do not make a vow at all, you will not be guilty. Whatever has passed from your lips you must be careful to do, because with your mouth you vowed to make an offering to the LORD your God with your mouth.” (Deuteronomy 23:21-23).
However, God recognized that a person could make a vow and then regret it. In that case he could be redeemed from his vow. “When a person makes a special vow to the LORD which is based on the value of different classes of people, the set value of a male from twenty years to sixty years of age is fifty shekels of silver, using the sanctuary standard.” (Leviticus 27:2-3).
In addition, the punishment for the violation of a law could not exceed the seriousness of the crime. The command “an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth” was meant to limit excessive punishments (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:17-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). In Latin this law is called the Lex Talionis; it is the law of reciprocity or equivalent compensation. For example, a man who stole bread had to make restitution and pay a fine, but he could not be maimed, nor lose his life, nor could his family suffer for his crime. There was a clear lack of proportion between Jonathan’s innocent violation and the proposed punishment. Jonathan broke a vow of which he had no knowledge and therefore, according to the law, he could not be put to death. However, he could be redeemed from the vow.
Although he defended himself by declaring that he did not know about the vow, Jonathan was willing to submit to his father’s death sentence. Why? Because he completely trusted God with his physical life and his eternal destiny. Thankfully, the Israelite soldiers refused to let Saul kill Jonathan.
We can make both a comparison and see a contrast between Jonathan and Jesus. First the comparison: Jonathan can certainly been seen as a “savior of his people figure” in this story, just like Jesus. Now the contrast: Unlike Jesus, who was rejected by His people, Jonathan’s people united in opposition to the authority of their King in order to save him from an unjust death.
One cannot help but wonder if Saul acted out of ignorance of the Law, or stubbornness, or was there a more sinister reason for his determination to execute Jonathan. Perhaps Saul, who could certainly be unreasonable at times, was infuriated that Jonathan had initiated the attack on the Philistine outpost without his consent. Or, he could have been angry if he had been told that Jonathan had criticized Saul’s vow as foolish and diminished his reputation among the soldiers. Or, he could have been jealous of Jonathan’s victory and his popularity with the soldiers.
1 Samuel 14:47-52 – Summary of Saul’s Reign
This closing section of chapter 14 summarizes Saul’s deeds as King of Israel in terms of his military victories over Israel’s enemies. God had withdrawn His favor from Saul, and Saul’s dynasty would end with his death. But the LORD did not withdraw His favor from Israel, and so the Israelites continued to defeat their enemies under Saul’s leadership. He successfully fought the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, the Philistines, the Amalekites , as well as the king of Zobah (one of the independent city-states of the Aramaeans /Syrians in the valley of Lebanon). All these enemies with the exception of the Philistines lived outside the boundaries of the Promised Land.
The Moabites’ kingdom was across the Jordan River due east of the Dead Sea and bordered on the north by the Arnon River and on the south by the Zered (Judg 11:17).
The Ammonites lived east of the Jordan River and north of Moab in the area of the modern state of Jordan.
The Edomite kingdom was located southwest of the Dead Sea.
Zobah was one of the independent city-states of the Aramaeans (Syrians) that was situated in the Valley of Lebanon and controlled eastern Syria from Hauran to the Euphrates River.
The Philistines continued to occupy five city-states and adjacent territories stretched along the Mediterranean coast just north of Egypt and the Sinai peninsula.
The Amalekites were semi-nomadic raiders who lived mostly in the Negev (the desert area of the Sinai peninsula).
At this point in his reign, Saul had three sons and two daughters by his wife. Later his wife will bear two more sons for him: Abinadab and Ishbaal. He will also have two other sons by a concubine (2 Samuel 3:7). Jonathan was Saul’s firstborn, and the crown prince. Saul’s second son, Ishvi (man of Yahweh) might have died in childhood, because he is not mentioned again and is not listed in the genealogy found in 1 Chronicles 8:33. Saul’s youngest son will later be called both Ishbaal (“man of the master/lord” in 1 Chronicles 8:33) and Ishbosheth (“man of shame” in 2 Samuel 2:8).
The name of the commander of Saul’s army was Abner son of Ner (who was Saul’s uncle). Abner was Saul’s cousin and his closest friend. He would loyally serve as Saul’s chief military commander throughout Saul’s reign.
We’re told that any strong or valiant man who caught Saul’s eye, he recruited into his service. This indicates the movement away from a volunteer fighting force in place of a professional army through military conscription.
Chapter 15: A Holy War Against The Amalekites
16 However, from the cities of these people that the Lord your God is giving to you as your inheritance, do not keep alive anything that breathes. 17 Devote them completely to destruction—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they do not teach you to commit all of the abominations that they commit for their gods, with the result that you sin against the Lord your God. – Deuteronomy 20:16-18
17 Remember what the Amalekites, without any fear of God, did to you on your journey after you came out of Egypt. 18 Remember how they confronted you on the way, when you were weak and tired, and they cut off all the stragglers among you, the ones who were lagging behind. 19 When the Lord your God gives you rest from all your enemies that are around you in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, wipe away the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Do not forget! – Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (See also Exodus 17:8-14)
1 Samuel 15:1-9 – God Orders Saul to Punish the Amalekites
We don’t know exactly how many years had passed since Israel defeated the Philistines in the “Second Battle of Michmash Pass.” The key Hebrew word in this chapter is kol/qol, which has the double meaning of “voice” and “sound.” Saul has been commanded to literally listen to the “voice” of the LORD (12:14, 15). Now Samuel tells Saul that the only thing that can be heard is the bleating “sounds/voices” of the flocks and herds which, according to God’s voice, should have been destroyed as consecrated to Him in Isreal’s victory over the Amalekites. (The word kol was used six times in 14:1, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 24.)
Samuel reminds Saul that even though he is Israel’s king, he (Saul) had been anointed at God’s direction by Samuel. Consequently, Saul could not function as he saw fit, but was expected to listen to the voice of the LORD as Samuel spoke for Him.
“The LORD of Armies” (v.2) is is God’s warrior-god title. Perhaps the most difficult of all the LORD’s commands to Israel’s army was His imposition of “harem” – the total destruction of an enemy and all he possessed. However, according to Deuteronomy 20:10-18, the harem (the “curse of destruction”) was only to be imposed on Canaanite cities.
Israel’s conquest of Canaan occurred not only to fulfill God’s promise to the Patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan, but also because the Israelites were expected to serve as an instrument for God’s divine justice against an idolatrous, depraved Canaanite populace, whose crimes included sacrificing untold numbers of children to the false deity Molech (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5).
Although they were not technically Canaanites, the Amalekites were also a violent, godless people who showed no mercy to their enemies, including the disembowelment of pregnant women and children when they raided villages without provocation and deprived people of the food they needed to survive (Judges 6:1-6; 1 Samuel 15:33; 30:16-20). God not only heard the cries of the Israelites when they were in despair, but He also hears the cries of all innocent people who are victims of injustice and oppression. In connection with the abusive, wicked behaviors of the Canaanites and Amalekites, the army of Israel was the vehicle God employed to bring His divine judgment against them for their for sins against humanity.
“Harem” was a form of warfare not unique to God’s chosen people. It was also practiced by other ancient peoples in the Near East. It was a way of consecrating a military victory and its plunder to the victor’s deity. It included anything living, from livestock to people, as well as their belongings.
However, in Hebrew the word harem has a double meaning. The verb “he herim,” means “to put under the curse/ban (of destruction).” But it can also mean “to consecrate,” “be separate,” or “sacred.” All the guilty were cursed, but any who were innocent and who lost their lives in a holy war were consecrated to God.
The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, who was the grandson of Esau (the son of Isaac and Rebekah and twin brother of Jacob; Genesis 36:15-16). The Amalekites occupied territory that God had assigned to Israel (primarily lands promised to the tribe of Judah in the Negev, as well as to the Transjordan tribes of Reuben and Gad. The Amalekites were probably a nomadic or semi-nomadic people. They were the first people to attack the migrating Israelites and their families shortly after the exodus began, after Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 17:8-16). God told the Israelites that the Amalekites were to be considered Israel’s perpetual enemies (Exodus 17:14; Deuteronomy 25:19).
Saul gathered his army at Telaim. This could be the same site as Telem, a city in the Negev that was given originally to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:24). Saul’s army was 210,000 troops strong. (Apparently, the warriors who had deserted Saul at Gilgal [I Samuel 13:2, 15] returned and others were willing to enlist after his victory at the Second Battle of Michmash Pass.)
Under Saul’s leadership, the Israelites planned to ambush the Amalekites as they were heading north from the Stream of Egypt out of the Wilderness of Shur (a desert region in the Sinai Peninsula east of the present Suez Canal). The Stream of Egypt marked the traditional southern boundary of the Promised Land (Numbers 34:5). Today it is known as the Wadi el- Arish which drains into the Mediterranean Sea, about fifty miles south of Gaza.
The Israelites formed up their troops ranks in a dry river bed. The “city of Amalek” was apparently their capital in the Negev. Havilah is rather difficult to identify, since the name is given in the Bible to more than one location. Genesis 2:11 places it in Eden. Genesis 10:7 and 1 Chronicles speak about Havilah as a region in southern Mesopotamia. While Genesis 25:18 locates it in northeast Arabia where the Ishmaelites “lived between Havilah and Shur, east of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur” (Assyria).
Prior to the battle’s beginning, Saul warned the nearby Kenites to leave, so that they would not be caught between the two warring armies. The Kennites were the descendants of Moses’ brother-in-law Hobab. Moses promised his brother-in-law a covenant with Israel and land in the Promised Land if he would lead the Israelites through the wilderness. The Israelites honored that promise and the tribe of Judah settled the Kenites in the southern boundary of their territory as resident aliens who were in covenant with Israel. (Numbers 10:29-32; Joshua 14:14; Judges 1:16 and 4:11)
The word “hesed” in the Hebrew text of verse 6, and translated as “kindness” refers to “faithful covenant love.” In its purest form it refers to the covenant-love relationship God promised the Israelites, as well as the kind of love He expected from Israel toward Him in return. A similar fidelity/covenant commitment was extended by the LORD to the Kenites for their kindness to Israel.
1 Samuel 15:10-23 – The LORD Rejects Saul
Samuel is devastated when God tells him “I regret that I have set up Saul to be king, for h has turned back from following Me, and he has not carried out My words” (v.10). This shouldn’t be construed to indicate that God had made a mistake in choosing Saul. Instead it is God’s expression of His sorrow over the wrong, disobedient choices that Saul had made, as well as the inferior condition of Saul’s relationship with the LORD (by Saul’s choosing) that would cost him the destiny God had offered to him and his descendants. Samuel’s anger and cries all night indicate that he was genuinely grieving over Saul’s failure – taking personally some of the responsibility for Saul’s fall.
In contrast to the humility demonstrated by both Moses and Joshua in connection with the victories God had granted them, Saul opts to personally erect a monument to himself to commemorate his victory over the Amalekites. Claiming personal credit for the victory was yet another indication of Saul’s penchant for putting his feelings and glory ahead of God’s will and honor. In his mind and heart….it was all about Saul!
The Carmel mentioned in verse 12 is not the Mount Carmel in the north near the coast of the Mediterranean, made famous in Elijah’s encounter with Ahab and the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18. The Carmel before us was a town to the south of Hebron.
The first thing Saul announced to Samuel when they met was that he had faithfully carried out of the LORD’s orders…..which Samuel promptly (and sarcastically) pointed out was clearly not true, since the Israelites had been directed to put every living thing under “harem.” Yet Samuel know that had not happened, since he could hear the bleating of sheep and the lowing of cattle.
As had been the case earlier in I Samuel 13:8-14, Samuel confronts Saul over the king’s insubordination to the prophet’s orders…..which was – finally – insubordination to God. These are only the beginning of many clashes that will occur between Israel’s (and Judah’s) kings and God’s prophets in the coming centuries. This situation, and those that will follow, demonstrate the inherent conflict between the kings in their roles as secular leaders of God’s people, and the LORD’s prophets who served as His representatives and spokesmen. Some of the more memorable clashes will take place between King Ahab and Elijah; King Manasseh and Isaiah; and King Zedekiah and Jeremiah.
In verse 17 “insignificant in your own sight” points back to 9:21 when a younger, humble Saul was astonished that he, from the smallest tribe of Benjamin, was chosen by God to be Israel’s first king.
In verse 19 we have the third use of the word kol, “voice” within Samuel’s condemnation and rhetorical question to Saul as to why he did not obey the LORD’s instructions.
The word “voice” is also repeated a fourth time in verse 20 as Saul tries feebly to defend himself. And what are his excuses?
First, sparing Agag and bring back some of the Amalekite plunder was the fault of the people and not Saul’s. Besides, says Saul, the animals were not brought back for selfish reasons but to be used as an offering to the LORD. The first excuse is contrary to the facts of the story (as verse 9 indicates). The second excuse turned out to be true – at least on the surface (verses 24-25) – but it was still a violate of God’s command, given back in verse 3. The very nature of the herem (total destruction) had already consigned all the animals as a holy sacrifice to LORD. So Saul’s justification for offering the “best of what was devoted to destruction” turns out to be theologically unacceptable (see verses 22-23; Ps 51:16-17).
Samuel climaxes his denunciation of Saul in verse 22-23 with a prophetic poem, the theme of which is the definition of what ought to be considered acceptable obedience to God. (These verses are quoted in Hebrews 10:8-9)
Notice that Samuel is not condemning the ritual activity of making a sacrifice to the Lord. His point is that a sacrifice properly offered is a demonstration of the gratitude, repentance, obedience and/or faith of the one bringing the offering.
In verse 21 Samuel delivers the disappointing message to Saul that God has rejected him. The difference between this rejection and the earlier rejection is that the earlier one (13:13-14) dealt with Saul’s dynasty (no sons would succeed him), but here it applies to Saul himself. God is now withdrawing His favor from Saul.
1 Samuel 15:24-31 – Saul Begs Samuel to Pardon Him
In verse 24 Saul tires for a second time to offer an excuse for his behavior by shifting the blame from himself to his people. He admits that he satisfied the wishes of his people when he “listened to their voice” instead of the voice of God. Saul here acknowledges his sin but does so without taking full responsibility. Then he asks for forgiveness. Consequently, his is not genuine contrition (godly sorrow over sin), because he is trying to pass off some of the fault/responsibility to others. (Sometimes, you and I do the same thing…..)
Instead of being filled with true fear and sorrow for offending God Saul’s main concern seems to be that he is more afraid of losing the people’s respect and support – if they no longer see Samuel publicly supporting him – than he is concerned about losing God’s respect and support.
Verses 25-28 are heart-breaking. In begging for forgiveness, Saul vainly hopes that the judgment of God can be revoked. However, while he acknowledges his sin, Saul simply doesn’t take the responsibility and accountability for that sin. In desperation, Saul reaches out to grab the hem of Samuel’s cloak. His is probably grabbing hold of one of the four tassels that were on the corners of Samuel’s cloak. (All Hebrew men of the covenant were commanded to wear tassels on the four corners of their cloaks as a reminder of the sacred character of the community [Num 15:37-39; Dt 22:12]).
Samuel symbolically interprets this tearing of his tassel as a visible demonstration that Saul’s kingdom is being torn from him and given to another.
In telling Saul, “The LORD has torn the kingdom away from you today, and He has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you” Samuel is alluding for a second time to David of Bethlehem (see 13:14). Bethlehem was located about ten miles south of Saul’s hometown of Gibeah.
We can also make another comparison between God’s judgment in the sin of Adam and God’s judgment of Saul’s sin. After Adam and Eve’s sin of rebellion in eating from the forbidden tree, they were expelled from Eden and their access to the garden and their former intimate relationship with God was forever blocked (Gen 3:23-24). Just as in the case of Adam, Saul’s punishment is also severe. His sin of rebellion and rejection of the authority of God over his life (15:23) resulted in the loss of his kingdom and of God’s continuing support of him…..and there will be no going back (15:26).
Referring to the LORD by the title “the Splendor of Israel,” Samuel is reminding Saul that God always keeps all of His promises and does not change his mind unlike human beings. Verse 29 is an allusion to Numbers 23:19……that God is not a human being who is prone to lying. Samuel’s point is that Saul will be allowed to continue as king because God chose Saul to serve as His anointed ruler of Israel, but God will no longer guide him nor will his sons succeed him.
In verse 30 finally Saul is no longer shifting the blame to others, but he still accompanies his confession with a personal plea to Samuel to prevent his public humiliation. Compassionately, Samuel relents and goes with Saul to the altar, but this does not mean that Samuel is acknowledging Saul as someone who is repentant, for the truly repentant not only confess their sins, they are sincere, and show will strive to their sincerity by demonstrating repentance through fruits of faith – wherever possible.
The root of Saul’s sin both here and in his earlier clash with Samuel (13:8-14) that brought about God’s first announcement of rejection, is that Saul had to do things his way…..rather than God’s way, even when it came to how he honored God. Although Saul’s motive might not have been to deprive the LORD of the sacrifice due him, by choosing to alter the LORD’s directive, Saul was – in effect – changing God’s Word……and there are always negative consequences for that. The command that Saul had broken is laid down in Deuteronomy 6:5 and 11:13-16a.
The story of Saul is a cautionary tale for all of us. God had chosen him for greatness….and – had Saul remained faithful – the LORD would have blessed his reign and allowed his descendants to rule Israel far into the future. But Saul forfeited that privilege through his selfishness and arrogance. His lack of faith and faithfulness resulted in dreadful consequences for him and his family line.
1 Samuel 15:32-35 -The Death of King Agag and the Departure of Samuel
Saul had spared the life of Agag, king of the Amalekites. Now Samuel had to carry out his execution. Agag, who had thought he had been spared, now realized that he was about to die. The words that Samuel spoke to Agag in verse 33 recall the abominable practice the Amalekites had of cutting the babies out of the bodies of their pregnant mothers. It was for this and other sins against humanity that God condemned the Amalekites to total destruction. Samuel justifies Agag’s punishment in verse 33 by stressing that it corresponded to Agag’s sins. But Agag’s execution should have been carried out on the battle field (1 Sam 13:3). It is an uncomfortable truth that those who are merciful to the cruel (like Saul sparing Agag) often end up being cruel to the merciful. In Saul’s case this maxim will come true in 1 Samuel 22.
Verse 35 seems to suggest that Samuel died without ever seeing Saul again. However, that interpretation conflicts with another passage, I Samuel 19:24, which tells us that Saul did see Samuel one last time. Perhaps a better interpretation of this verse would be that Samuel no longer sought out Saul to provide him any counsel, no longer serving Saul as his spiritual advisor.
Saul returned to his home city of Gibeah. That the LORD “regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel” in verse 35 does not mean God made a mistake in selecting Saul, but as in 15:11, it is an expression of sorrow that Saul was unwilling to fulfill the role God has planned for him. Every human being has been created for the purpose of glorifying God (I Corinthians 10:31), and it is God’s plan for everyone that they be saved (II Timothy 2:4; II Peter 3:9) but not all glorify God with their lives, and not everyone inherits eternal life.
King Saul was a tragic figure in Biblical history. He seemed to have had every advantage for success. He was tall, handsome, and from a good family (1 Sam 9:1). His father was a mighty warrior from the tribe of Benjamin who loved his son (1 Sam 9:1; 10:2). Saul married a woman named Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahjimaaz (1 Sam 14:50) who bore him healthy children (1 Sam 14:49; 1 Chr 8:33; 9:39). Everything seemed to be in his favor, and at first his character showed that he was humble and self-effacing, qualities of which God approves, but he lacked self-discipline and an obedient heart.
I believe that Saul wanted to do what was right before God, but when push came to shove in one situation after another, Saul was unwilling to trust God by humbling placing himself under God’s authority and direction. The tension in Saul between wanting to do what was right, his lack of self-discipline and his inability to trust in the LORD ultimately led God to reject Saul. The loss of God’s favor resulted in a tortured man who slowly declined into a thoroughly disobedient life, depression, mental illness, and suicide.